(05-16-2023 10:32 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Babcock said this about unequal revenue sharing:
“Do we think that will close the gap that everyone incessantly talks about?” Babcock said. “Not all the way, but making strides toward that, keeping in contact financially with the Big Ten and SEC and hopefully become a clear-cut third (among the Power Five) and separate out from the (Pac-12 and Big 12).”
Funny, this is exactly what Hokie Mark and I have been preaching about: the ACC needs to become an undisputable #3 conference.
Now, the unequal revenue sharing won’t increase the total payout. So how can the ACC increase the revenue? Hint: this is another topic Hokie Mark and I have been posting about on this board.
Mo money is coming. I'm still not convinced that the ACC won't end up expanding soon (we'll see).
The conference has done just about everything possible with what they have to work with.
The onus is now on ESPN.
If expansion is the only way to get a market adjustment....so be it, but it is obvious that there are some within the ACC that are united (maybe not in destination) but with the understanding that there must be change even if it means doing something drastic.
ESPN is on the clock.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2023 04:56 AM by XLance.)
(05-16-2023 10:32 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Babcock said this about unequal revenue sharing:
“Do we think that will close the gap that everyone incessantly talks about?” Babcock said. “Not all the way, but making strides toward that, keeping in contact financially with the Big Ten and SEC and hopefully become a clear-cut third (among the Power Five) and separate out from the (Pac-12 and Big 12).”
Funny, this is exactly what Hokie Mark and I have been preaching about: the ACC needs to become an undisputable #3 conference.
Now, the unequal revenue sharing won’t increase the total payout. So how can the ACC increase the revenue? Hint: this is another topic Hokie Mark and I have been posting about on this board.
Mo money is coming. I'm still not convinced that the ACC won't end up expanding soon (we'll see).
The conference has done just about everything possible with what they have to work with.
The onus is now on ESPN.
If expansion is the only way to get a market adjustment....so be it, but it is obvious that there are some within the ACC that are united (maybe not in destination) but with the understanding that there must be change even if it means doing something drastic.
ESPN is on the clock.
I've thought about that for quite a while - if expanding is a way to open the contract to a market adjustment, then we should do it. Oregon and Washington won't come, but the 4c schools and Stanford might. Add SMU to get Texas and we add several states to the ACC network and trigger a renegotiation.
Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washington, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
(05-21-2023 07:55 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washing, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
(05-21-2023 07:55 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washing, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
(05-21-2023 07:55 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washing, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
A targeted expansion with 1 school per state would be a Western division consisting of Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona State, and Utah, with SMU added to one of the 5 team divisions in the east. DFW airport is a direct flight from most airports, so the travel isn't terrible for SMU. That adds California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Texas to in state ACC network carriage fees. You can't tell me that doesn't work out financially, especially if we have a success based payout.
(05-21-2023 07:55 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washing, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
How was it that in 2011 the BE was worth $11m per, but as soon as everybody jumps ship mos of those individual members were worth way more?
It’s obvious, ESPN was and is lowballing. They want this heirarchy of 2 upperclass conferences, a middle class, and the serfs.
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2023 09:18 AM by Garrettabc.)
(05-21-2023 07:55 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washing, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
A targeted expansion with 1 school per state would be a Western division consisting of Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona State, and Utah, with SMU added to one of the 5 team divisions in the east. DFW airport is a direct flight from most airports, so the travel isn't terrible for SMU. That adds California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Texas to in state ACC network carriage fees. You can't tell me that doesn't work out financially, especially if we have a success based payout.
YES! Completely agree with this plan...myself and other UL fans our boards have been preaching this last ditch try to "go west" for a year now, and then John Skipper just strengthened the reasoning behind with his idea. This would be foolishness if B10 didn't already go to the Pacific Coast...but since we're already there now, and in survival mode, its time to make this happen.
Hale broke down several options, the way he explained each leads to dead ends for each....this one though, I don't feel like he/nor the ACC truly expound upon is this go west expansion.
(05-21-2023 07:55 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washing, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
How was it that in 2011 the BE was worth $11m per, but as soon as everybody jumps ship mos of those individual members were worth way more?
It’s obvious, ESPN was and is lowballing. They want this heirarchy of 2 upperclass conferences, a middle class, and the serfs.
If ESPN thinks the rest of us are going to just set aside our own schools interest and start following/cheering even watching a "Premiere League"....they're sadly mistaken and miscalculating. We'll find other things to watch/do while the new CFB Premiere League is going on...
Well, I asked about the Washington/Oregon to B10 but not ACC scenario...got that answer, then proposed the one we're talking about in here, have been talking about for months now...and here is Hales response...
(05-21-2023 09:59 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Well, I asked about the Washington/Oregon to B10 but not ACC scenario...got that answer, then proposed the one we're talking about in here, have been talking about for months now...and here is Hales response...
My read is that expansion makes SOME more money, but not the windfall that would get all 14 YES votes. Some are apparently holding on to a false hope of the "one big prize" as opposed to lots of little bumps in revenue...
(05-16-2023 10:32 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Babcock said this about unequal revenue sharing:
“Do we think that will close the gap that everyone incessantly talks about?” Babcock said. “Not all the way, but making strides toward that, keeping in contact financially with the Big Ten and SEC and hopefully become a clear-cut third (among the Power Five) and separate out from the (Pac-12 and Big 12).”
Funny, this is exactly what Hokie Mark and I have been preaching about: the ACC needs to become an undisputable #3 conference.
Now, the unequal revenue sharing won’t increase the total payout. So how can the ACC increase the revenue? Hint: this is another topic Hokie Mark and I have been posting about on this board.
(05-21-2023 07:55 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: Did this slip by yall, like it did me? I'm usually right on top of all things realignment, especially the ones with actual news to them, not rumors. David Hale reporting that the ACC looked into adding Oregon, Washing, SMU, West Virginia, but they're saying the numbers don't work....
Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
A targeted expansion with 1 school per state would be a Western division consisting of Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona State, and Utah, with SMU added to one of the 5 team divisions in the east. DFW airport is a direct flight from most airports, so the travel isn't terrible for SMU. That adds California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Texas to in state ACC network carriage fees. You can't tell me that doesn't work out financially, especially if we have a success based payout.
YES! Completely agree with this plan...myself and other UL fans our boards have been preaching this last ditch try to "go west" for a year now, and then John Skipper just strengthened the reasoning behind with his idea. This would be foolishness if B10 didn't already go to the Pacific Coast...but since we're already there now, and in survival mode, its time to make this happen.
Hale broke down several options, the way he explained each leads to dead ends for each....this one though, I don't feel like he/nor the ACC truly expound upon is this go west expansion.
We discussed Hale’s tweets in the expansion thread:
(05-21-2023 08:08 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
A targeted expansion with 1 school per state would be a Western division consisting of Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona State, and Utah, with SMU added to one of the 5 team divisions in the east. DFW airport is a direct flight from most airports, so the travel isn't terrible for SMU. That adds California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Texas to in state ACC network carriage fees. You can't tell me that doesn't work out financially, especially if we have a success based payout.
YES! Completely agree with this plan...myself and other UL fans our boards have been preaching this last ditch try to "go west" for a year now, and then John Skipper just strengthened the reasoning behind with his idea. This would be foolishness if B10 didn't already go to the Pacific Coast...but since we're already there now, and in survival mode, its time to make this happen.
Hale broke down several options, the way he explained each leads to dead ends for each....this one though, I don't feel like he/nor the ACC truly expound upon is this go west expansion.
We discussed Hale’s tweets in the expansion thread:
(05-16-2023 10:32 PM)random asian guy Wrote: Babcock said this about unequal revenue sharing:
“Do we think that will close the gap that everyone incessantly talks about?” Babcock said. “Not all the way, but making strides toward that, keeping in contact financially with the Big Ten and SEC and hopefully become a clear-cut third (among the Power Five) and separate out from the (Pac-12 and Big 12).”
Funny, this is exactly what Hokie Mark and I have been preaching about: the ACC needs to become an undisputable #3 conference.
Now, the unequal revenue sharing won’t increase the total payout. So how can the ACC increase the revenue? Hint: this is another topic Hokie Mark and I have been posting about on this board.
WE’RE #3
Ok, this is BY FAR the funniest thing you've ever posted, Green.
There may be hope for you yet.
(05-21-2023 08:08 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: Then how do the numbers work for the B1G to add Washington and Oregon?
Thats a very good question. I would think if you take SMU out of that 4-some, add Cincy or even just take 4 from Pac (say Utah and Colorado), if they were actually looking at out west schools.....that the matchups created would certainly create more $ for both the ACC and ESPN. Its a head scratcher.
A targeted expansion with 1 school per state would be a Western division consisting of Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona State, and Utah, with SMU added to one of the 5 team divisions in the east. DFW airport is a direct flight from most airports, so the travel isn't terrible for SMU. That adds California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, and Texas to in state ACC network carriage fees. You can't tell me that doesn't work out financially, especially if we have a success based payout.
YES! Completely agree with this plan...myself and other UL fans our boards have been preaching this last ditch try to "go west" for a year now, and then John Skipper just strengthened the reasoning behind with his idea. This would be foolishness if B10 didn't already go to the Pacific Coast...but since we're already there now, and in survival mode, its time to make this happen.
Hale broke down several options, the way he explained each leads to dead ends for each....this one though, I don't feel like he/nor the ACC truly expound upon is this go west expansion.
We discussed Hale’s tweets in the expansion thread:
My read that is there is money and there would be a small increase. But the ACC leadeeship is looking for a jackpot.
It seems to me that we shouldn't expand beyond 16, since that is the ideal conference size right now. So Washington and Oregon only. What would that add?
![[Image: foam-finger.jpg]](https://blueprintforhistory.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/foam-finger.jpg)
![[Image: Leprechaun.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCKPZyn-xLP9-b0FSqNgbrWczdUSVOrg3pHGxzg5XgOiL0Flrmfh92SZmib7upy5-w6mI4tblSvO5b-uE0jUOJe5DdjMS0Cexy8NBknw_BC34yajJgx-5gT9muBQRyCHm1JTQV9FroambCZZWRtShftYHcbVwLc39xYQW5fS9bgqnyHsZNlHUmLTrdrA/w200-h135/Leprechaun.jpg)
