The PAC imploded because it waited too long to consider expansion and waited too long to lock in a media deal.

If the PAC would have expanded while the Big 12 was struggling after the Tex/OK exit, they could have easily snatched at least 2 teams from the Big 12. Just enough to tip the balance in the PAC's favor after USC and UCLA leave.

The end result is the PAC probably keep Wash and Ore for the next cycle and survive, and ranked higher than the Big 12 in the pecking order.

(03-27-2024 08:40 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:34 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:07 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 06:53 AM)esayem Wrote:  Texas, aTM, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Missouri

Which league is watered down again?

I dont think they were referring to the current ACC but the ACC without FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami, UVA, and probably Duke, and NC ST. The remaining members of the ACC at that point are a lesser collection of teams compared to what the Big XII was before their resurrection.

Sure, I guess if ESPN and FOX have an extra $700m / year between them lying around to accommodate all those moves, not to mention the amount it would cost the schools. Also, the loss ESPN would be taking accommodating all those moves.


This isn’t Monopoly money the networks use. It’s real. UW and UO are about equal value to Clemson and FSU and they’re getting half shares.

FSU and Clemson's(and UNC's probably) value comes from the competition from FOX and Disney over their inventory.

ESPN didnt have a place for UW and UO to justify the cost to steal them from the FOX umbrella.

FOX has a place(in theory) for Clemson and FSU that is worth the cost of stealing them from Disney and Disney will need to bid against that.

After that happens, ACC schools that can get out will take any share they can get to have a landing spot.

Their value is being questioned by multiple credible industry reporters. Take the YouTube sensationalists out of the equation. They’re a video rag, not worth anyone’s time. Although I appreciate their capitalistic spirit in fooling sheep.

Cool. I never mentioned Youtube, but you do you.

With 18 members, I think a complete implosion is highly unlikely. Based on the schools who are likely to be left behind, my consensus is that the ACC will carry on as a “Magnolia” conference of private schools, AAU schools, and near-AAU schools. I’m not convinced that Pitt, VT, and GT would find the Big 12 attractive enough to defect and cause either a mass exodus or partial merger.

Call me crazy but I see the Big East as the biggest threat to the ACC.

(03-27-2024 09:03 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would just throw it out there that sometimes collapsing is better than not-collapsing.

I mean, imagine if after USC and UCLA left, none of the remaining PAC schools could get an invite to the M2?

The PAC would not have collapsed, by necessity the 10 leftovers would have stayed together, but they'd all be making about $20m a year in media from the Apple deal that was on the table, whereas now the PAC has collapsed and 8 of the 10 are going to be making more than that in the M2. Only WS and OS are worse off.

So if FSU/Clemson/NC/Miami leave the ACC, the ACC may well not collapse, but if so that will be because the leftovers have no options in the nB12 or the P2, and they will be worse off than if it did collapse the way the PAC collapsed, with most schools getting life-rafts out.

So are you saying the Big12 should have collapsed? I actually think they have rebuilt nicely? If we are living in a P2/M2/G5 world why would the ACC not follow the B12 rebuild blueprint?

I'm not saying conferences should or shouldn't collapse. I was just trying to comment on whether a collapse is a good thing or not. To me, terms like "implode" and "collapse" carry an inherently negative connotation, such that when I read them, it makes me think a bad thing has happened.

I was just reminding myself - by posting out loud, LOL - that this isn't necessarily the case. It depends on what happens to the schools when a collapse happens. If the schools end up in a better situation than if they had stayed together, like IMO the 10 PAC leavers are, then the collapse was a good thing overall, as far more schools improved their situation via the PAC collapse than were harmed by it (OST and WST).

In the case of the nB12, I think that had those schools not stuck together, they would have ended up in various G-leagues, because nobody in the other four conferences wanted them. Maybe Kansas would have found a home in the ACC, but for the others, it was join the MW or AAC. So IMO the nB12 schools were very wise to stick together, they are all much better off for having done so.

For whatever reason, the "breakup value" of the PAC was significantly greater than its corporate value. In the case of the nB12, its corporate value was and is way more than its breakup value. In business, those outcomes often are the result of good vs poor management, though not always.

Given that SMU is now in the ACC, the likelihood of a conference collapsing has never been higher.

The ACC will not implode. Only 3-4 schools in that conference are P2 worthy. The Pac-12 only lost 4 members to the P2.

Plus, the ACC is adding 3 new members. So if they end up losing three schools, there is no net change to the total membership from today.

There is the risk if a few schools leave (FSU, UNC, Clemson for example), would the Big 12 then be able to poach any members?

What impact, if any, would expansion right now have on the ACC and the ability for schools to leave earlier than the current timeline? Is the challenge that expansion wouldn't bring in enough $ to make it worthwhile?

(03-27-2024 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 09:03 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would just throw it out there that sometimes collapsing is better than not-collapsing.

I mean, imagine if after USC and UCLA left, none of the remaining PAC schools could get an invite to the M2?

The PAC would not have collapsed, by necessity the 10 leftovers would have stayed together, but they'd all be making about $20m a year in media from the Apple deal that was on the table, whereas now the PAC has collapsed and 8 of the 10 are going to be making more than that in the M2. Only WS and OS are worse off.

So if FSU/Clemson/NC/Miami leave the ACC, the ACC may well not collapse, but if so that will be because the leftovers have no options in the nB12 or the P2, and they will be worse off than if it did collapse the way the PAC collapsed, with most schools getting life-rafts out.

So are you saying the Big12 should have collapsed? I actually think they have rebuilt nicely? If we are living in a P2/M2/G5 world why would the ACC not follow the B12 rebuild blueprint?

I'm not saying conferences should or shouldn't collapse. I was just trying to comment on whether a collapse is a good thing or not. To me, terms like "implode" and "collapse" carry an inherently negative connotation, such that when I read them, it makes me think a bad thing has happened.

I was just reminding myself - by posting out loud, LOL - that this isn't necessarily the case. It depends on what happens to the schools when a collapse happens. If the schools end up in a better situation than if they had stayed together, like IMO the 10 PAC leavers are, then the collapse was a good thing overall, as far more schools improved their situation via the PAC collapse than were harmed by it (OST and WST).

In the case of the nB12, I think that had those schools not stuck together, they would have ended up in various G-leagues, because nobody in the other four conferences wanted them. Maybe Kansas would have found a home in the ACC, but for the others, it was join the MW or AAC. So IMO the nB12 schools were very wise to stick together, they are all much better off for having done so.

For whatever reason, the "breakup value" of the PAC was significantly greater than its corporate value. In the case of the nB12, its corporate value was and is way more than its breakup value. In business, those outcomes often are the result of good vs poor management, though not always.

3 uncompensated schools into the ACC, 3 schools out of the ACC. The 3 in get full shares when the other 3 are out.

Notre Dame as Terry D has pointed out will be making north of 80 million with all deals included and the added CFP revenue so thy remain independent and top 10 nationwide (likely a bit higher than 7th or 8th) in revenue. The additions of Cal, Stanford and S.M.U. take nothing away from Notre Dame but Clemson. They can still play in North Carolina and Florida and likely don't care about playing in South Carolina anyway.

ESPN uses the lawsuits and conjecture of UNC's uneasiness to fall behind to negotiate a settlement which keeps those 3 under ESPN control in the SEC.

Whose the 4th? It could be Duke or Virginia, or it could be Kansas. Duke allows ESPN to shelter all 4 top brands in Football and Basketball in the SEC prior to approach of 2036 in what could be a bidding war for the top ACC schools, Virginia would be to shelter markets, or Kansas would be for the top value and to balance SEC divisions.

The ACC does not implode. Cal, Stanford & SMU keep the contracted inventory level the same, give ESPN late night time slots to utilize, and Notre Dame is sated so the ACC is secure. Values have been segregated as well. ESPN can make its investment in the move of the schools to the SEC up in football content and increased profile for hoops in the SEC.

And FOX and the Big 10 while posed as the phantom menace allows for ESPN to have a plausible reason to do what they wanted to do for future inventory security.

Adding California and Texas to the ACCN map legitimately raises revenues there and losing South Carolina doens't cost them much. Add UConn and Utah or Oregon State and this is what happens in the ACC:

California, Southern Methodist, Stanford, Utah/Oregon State

Boston College, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami

*Notre Dame

That conference still has major academic credentials just with Duke, Stanford and Virginia, but it also still has Georgia Tech and Miami and Cal plus Notre Dame for 7 AAU schools.

It still has decent football, plus Notre Dame and Miami and has excellent hoops especially with the addition of UConn.

The ACCN has been accentuated, not damaged.

This move elevates the SEC and ACC, costs ESPN little initially and will recoup more in profits totally. There is no danger to N.C. State so no need to constrain UNC which would keep the annual games with State, Virginia and Duke and Wake in basketball.

FSU keeps Miami.

Notre Dame continues scheduling with SEC schools.

I fail to see a major downside for the ACC or SEC and simply because those of equal value are grouped accordingly.

IMO the lawsuits and UNC's threat is the Kabuki theater which covers the reason and motive for the moves.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is accomplished by the end of July.

(03-27-2024 10:27 AM)Comet Wrote:  Given that SMU is now in the ACC, the likelihood of a conference collapsing has never been higher.

It's been a rough ride over the last 30 years at University Park:

The fall of the SWC
The 16 team WAC
Conference USA
The AAC

If Bobby Collins and his friends in high places had not crushed the football program, it would have been a likely Big 12 candidate in 1996.

(03-27-2024 10:27 AM)Comet Wrote:  Given that SMU is now in the ACC, the likelihood of a conference collapsing has never been higher.

SMU will be fine. Even in a rump ACC you are way better off than anywhere that you have been since the SWC imploded.

I don't see the ACC imploding anyways. The top teams will leave to the B1G/SEC if they can. Everyone else will find that departure will be too expensive for their tastes.

The ACC situation isn't like the PAC. The PAC didn't have an exit fee and had a GOR that was expiring without a media deal in place. The ACC has a media deal, a GOR, and an exit fee larger than the Big 12's. The cost of moving is much higher and that means the benefits of moving must be as well.

(03-27-2024 10:31 AM)kmdhoya Wrote:  The ACC will not implode. Only 3-4 schools in that conference are P2 worthy. The Pac-12 only lost 4 members to the P2.

Plus, the ACC is adding 3 new members. So if they end up losing three schools, there is no net change to the total membership from today.

There is the risk if a few schools leave (FSU, UNC, Clemson for example), would the Big 12 then be able to poach any members?

100% agree, and no Big12 gets less $$ than the ACC

(03-27-2024 11:05 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:31 AM)kmdhoya Wrote:  There is the risk if a few schools leave (FSU, UNC, Clemson for example), would the Big 12 then be able to poach any members?

100% agree, and no Big12 gets less $$ than the ACC

Depends on ESPN, and the closer we get (every day) to the end of the ACC's GOR (reducing ACC exit costs). Today, no one jumps to the Big XII. Next Tuesday? Time will tell (and maybe some insiders' leaks).

(03-26-2024 09:05 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Aside from Clemson and Florida State wanting to leave the ACC for the SEC (more than likely), will the ACC suffer the same fate as the PAC, or is it just alot of much ado about nothing?

The chances of an ACC implosion are very low. The PAC imploded because 1) conference commitments ended in the near future, 2) when the first defections occurred, the PAC didn’t immediately backfill and 3) the overwhelming majority of legacy members found better or comparable conference landing spots. ACC conference commitments don’t end for another 12 years. The ACC understands the urgency of backfills. Exchanging Maryland for Louisville was executed swiftly a decade ago. More importantly, expansion with Cal, Stanford and SMU is somewhat of a preemptive backfill. Finally, the P2 are now internally focused…needing to assimilate forthcoming new members.

IMO, there is a better chance of FSU remaining in the ACC for the next decade. If FSU can’t negotiate an acceptable price, FSU will remain in the ACC. Not that FSU is likely to stay in the ACC, merely that the chances of an ACC implosion are very low.

Nevertheless , this is not “much ado about nothing”. FSU clearly wants out and has defined this fight as an existential issue for its athletics department. Clemson has prioritized the financial implications and is negotiating for an acceptable price. If the price is right, UNC and NC State will also leave. Other schools (with the exception of ND) don’t have probable P2 spots, but understand the benefits of moving to P2-level stability and resources…these schools would appreciate a potentially lower exit price. If the exit price is too low, the ACC will remain unstable until 2036. For example, schools like Duke won’t struggle to find capital funding to finance an exit if the need/opportunity ever arises.

(03-27-2024 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 07:52 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  I truly believe the GOR will hold and the teams that exit will be paying north of 500 million to do so before 2030. I just don't see the ACC collapsing.

Let's look at the factors that contributed to the PAC Collapse after USCLA and USC announced:
1. The PAC had GOR expiring in the next year
2. Oregon and Washington began arguing for unequal revenue and tried desperately to follow USC and UCLA out the door
2. The PAC did not have a TV deal on the table or credible competition for their TV rights
3. Colorado had dormant rivals in the B12 and used realignment to counter arguments for unequal revenue. Colorado called the meeting to see the progress on the deal, and compared this with the B12 offer with the signing bonus they opted to jump first. They felt urgency for the immediate future and we're worn down by a targeted PR campaign.
4. Oregon and Washington leveraged the B12 offer and the ACC offer to get into the B1G at half shares
5. ACC deal was eventually reworked to get Cal and Stanford

ACC has already shot down unequal revenue distribution. The GOR till 2036. What dormant rivalries do ACC members have in the Big 12? Are the SEC or Big Ten going to be offering half shares for NC State, Pitt, Louisville? Do any ACC teams want to play members of the Big 12? The preference of the remaining ACC schools is likely to keep the league together and reload with like-minded institutions. UCF, Tulane, USF will all be available.

Did West Virginia benefit from joining the Big 12? Was it their first choice? Why does everyone think members of the ACC want to be on an island in a Texas centric conference over a mostly eastern conference with a pair of teams in a major flight hub in San Francisco. The ACC will get to watch how Cincy, UCF, and WVU trend in the next couple of years and I will bet it will be downward as the home football schedules suffer from the lack of regional teams.

There's no way anyone pays $500 million to leave. At that price, they stay. The reality is both sides want a reasonable exit. They will work a deal for substantially less than that. If the ESPN deal holds and they keep Miami and the ACCN in Florida, the value for the duration of the GOR for the ACC is effectively zero. They get no benefit. So any price would be profit. The ACC wants a price nobody but FSU and Clemson will pay. But at $500 million nobody pays it and only ESPN wins. That $442 million of the $572 for the GOR is simply what the ACC pays FSU, not the value of the GOR. It is the value of the TV contract to FSU.

It is interesting that the way the UT/OU exit was written, they paid zero, but honored the GOR. They get no money from the Big 12 or the SEC the last year of the GOR when they are in the SEC. However, ESPN is giving them some undisclosed amount.

I don't know if FSU and Clemson are confident they can win, but the ACC can't be sure either. Both will prefer a settlement.

This is why I tend to discount your theory. It is doubtful that ESPN will agree to pay Florida State and Clemson "an undisclosed amount" because all of those funds have to come directly fom ESPN/Disney, and let's be totally honest the marketing value of Florida State and Clemson can't come close to the marketing value of Texas and Oklahoma.

(03-27-2024 08:45 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  all us non-Acc fans in NC are waiting patiently for the implosion.

On the day UNC leaves and breaks up tobacco road, all the trailer parks and country clubs in NC will have a national day of mourning. Much chablis and camembert, and velveeta and busch light will be consumed in bittersweet nostalgia.

fast forward 5 years and you'll hear scattered chants of SEC-SEC-SEC while a 2-8 UNC football team takes the field in kenan, and UNC basketball is a shadow of itself without the mystique of tobacco road.

at least their student-athletes will get a great edu- oh wait nevermind.

As someone who grew up in the area as an ECU fan before enrolling at App and becoming an App fan, I like the idea of the four N.C. ACC schools not being together.

(03-27-2024 12:03 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 08:45 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  all us non-Acc fans in NC are waiting patiently for the implosion.

On the day UNC leaves and breaks up tobacco road, all the trailer parks and country clubs in NC will have a national day of mourning. Much chablis and camembert, and velveeta and busch light will be consumed in bittersweet nostalgia.

fast forward 5 years and you'll hear scattered chants of SEC-SEC-SEC while a 2-8 UNC football team takes the field in kenan, and UNC basketball is a shadow of itself without the mystique of tobacco road.

at least their student-athletes will get a great edu- oh wait nevermind.

As someone who grew up in the area as an ECU fan before enrolling at App and becoming an App fan, I like the idea of the four N.C. ACC schools not being together.

I would like to see NC A&T join the Belt and UNCW the AAC.

(03-27-2024 12:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 12:03 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 08:45 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  all us non-Acc fans in NC are waiting patiently for the implosion.

On the day UNC leaves and breaks up tobacco road, all the trailer parks and country clubs in NC will have a national day of mourning. Much chablis and camembert, and velveeta and busch light will be consumed in bittersweet nostalgia.

fast forward 5 years and you'll hear scattered chants of SEC-SEC-SEC while a 2-8 UNC football team takes the field in kenan, and UNC basketball is a shadow of itself without the mystique of tobacco road.

at least their student-athletes will get a great edu- oh wait nevermind.

As someone who grew up in the area as an ECU fan before enrolling at App and becoming an App fan, I like the idea of the four N.C. ACC schools not being together.

I would like to see NC A&T join the Belt and UNCW the AAC.

Hell yeah bring the Aggies on! Tailgate would be awesome.

(03-27-2024 12:03 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 08:45 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  all us non-Acc fans in NC are waiting patiently for the implosion.

On the day UNC leaves and breaks up tobacco road, all the trailer parks and country clubs in NC will have a national day of mourning. Much chablis and camembert, and velveeta and busch light will be consumed in bittersweet nostalgia.

fast forward 5 years and you'll hear scattered chants of SEC-SEC-SEC while a 2-8 UNC football team takes the field in kenan, and UNC basketball is a shadow of itself without the mystique of tobacco road.

at least their student-athletes will get a great edu- oh wait nevermind.

As someone who grew up in the area as an ECU fan before enrolling at App and becoming an App fan, I like the idea of the four N.C. ACC schools not being together.

We're almost there brother. UNC will have a pyrrhic victory of getting a few more shekels but ruin everything that built them.

PARTYTIME!

(03-27-2024 09:33 AM)goofus Wrote:  The PAC imploded because it waited too long to consider expansion and waited too long to lock in a media deal.

If the PAC would have expanded while the Big 12 was struggling after the Tex/OK exit, they could have easily snatched at least 2 teams from the Big 12. Just enough to tip the balance in the PAC's favor after USC and UCLA leave.

The end result is the PAC probably keep Wash and Ore for the next cycle and survive, and ranked higher than the Big 12 in the pecking order.

Even though we all agree that, in hindsight, the Pac should have delivered the coup de gras while the Big 12 was wounded, it would have been VERY difficult to get the votes to do so back then, or even to see why it was necessary. How would they settle on schools? Kansas and TCU would hardly have moved the needle, they would have moved about as much as SDSU and SMU in 2022 did, and even post-USCLA the Pac wouldn't add those 2. Ok St would have moved the needle but neither the Pac nor the ACC back then would have given them the time of day due to their Academics. Baylor? nope. Iowa St? Come on.

When you go back and look at those 8 lonely survivors in the Big 12 back in 2021, it's almost hard to believe where they are now. I don't think that the Pac or ACC ever even considered any of them at the time, and they might not have gotten a single yes vote for a single Big 12 program. Which makes what happened in 2022/23 all the more astounding. I'm not trashing the Big 12 here, you guys know that I respect them as programs and as a Conference, but a whole lot of things had to break their way to get them where they are today. If the Pac had Yormark as Commissioner in 2021 and Delany and 3 former US Presidents as advisors all pushing them to add Big 12 refugees, I still don't think it would have happened.