(09-28-2023 04:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  .

100%.

It helps get the ball rolling on the four phase plan.

Phase I: add Stan/Cal/SMU pro rata
Phase II: FSU & Clem (maybe a third school) exit, Media deal per school remains intact. Plus, some reasonable negotiated GOR exit fees add to the war chest.
Phase III: add three-to-six more schools at pro-rata, or at 50% pro-rata to get total media deal back up to Phase I level (even if split across more schools). Legacy schools remain whole and maybe Stan/Cal/SMU get a raise out of the deal (but not yet to full media shares).
Phase IV: The rest of the Mag 7 exit stage left, again negotiating “reasonable” early GOR exits, probably for fewer $$ per team than FSU/Clem because by now we’re a couple years closer to the end of the GOR. Media deal remains essentially whole for all remaining teams.

ESPN goes from significantly underpaying for the back end of the original ACC deal to paying the same $$ for a less high powered league (but a fair price vs underpaying). For their trouble they have the next round of consolidation lined up. Depending on how many of those 7 head to the SEC (let’s say it’s 5) then it’s a big net win for the world wide leader.
Teams like Stan/Cal/SMU probably have to be happy where they are, or wait until 2036 GOR if they want to go B1G.

This is where your plan goes off the rails.

I doubt there are enough schools available to replace exiting ACC programs to keep the remaining ACC schools from jumping to The Big 12.

The future of The ACC depends not on who leaves but the number of programs that leave.

Speaking as strictly a Louisville fan, Memphis would be the only available school I would be interested in The ACC adding. Beyond that I would rather take Memphis and present ACC members to The Big 12.

(09-28-2023 03:19 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 04:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 10:25 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:22 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... in last week's terrific article by Steve Berkowitz and Kirk Bohls in USA Today (linked on the board by Hokie4Skins and well-summarized and analyzed by Bullet, JRsec and others). ICYMI, the gist of the article was that both UT and OU ended up paying pennies on the dollar on their contractual exit fees from the Big XII:

ESPN
“After Texas and Oklahoma made the decision to change conferences, those schools, along with the Big 12 and SEC, chose to accelerate the process and transition a year earlier," ESPN said in statement. "At that time, the media partners were brought in to reach a resolution that would satisfy all parties for the 2024-25 season.”

Brett Yormark
“This was a business decision. Historically the withdrawal from a conference has resulted in a negotiated settlement, and we believe we landed in a good place. Our future is as bright as it’s ever been.”

Kansas State athletic director Gene Taylor
The settlement left the athletics directors at some of the continuing Big 12 schools “kind of dumbfounded. We fought back as hard as we could,” but Taylor said the conference’s lawyers advised them, Yormark and the schools’ presidents and chancellors that the bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.”

Thoughts or elaboration on any of these insider perspectives?

And how might this discounted Big XII settlement impact (or even expedite) what we could see from any malcontents that seem to be itching for a way to exit the ACC prior to the expiration of John Swofford's ironclad GoR in 2036?

Brett Yormark was complicit with the exit of Oklahoma and Texas, the same will not be the case with the ACC membership.

How many ACC presidents does it take to fire Swofford and install a puppet commissioner that will be complicit?

Because you can promise an at least equivalent conference to everyone except Wake, Syracuse, and BC, if the networks want to pay for it.

The three new adds are easily bought. Stanford and Cal will vote to dissolve the ACC in a nanosecond to join the B1G and the other California schools. SMU will gladly join Louisville and Pitt in the Big XII.

It all boils down to what UNC wants really. And if UNC and UVA are aligned (either to move together or separate) then the ACC will cease to exist.

So as usual, the ACC's future is in Carolina's hands.

Johnny didn't get fired, he retired
Swofford was in my class at Carolina ('71) and Delany was a year older ('70). Both worked about 5 years beyond normal retirement age.

BTW, the real power of the ACC rests in Durham, not Chapel Hill.

I meant Phillips not Swofford but bonked on the name.

I've never heard anyone say that Duke, not UNC, holds the real power in the ACC. Care to elaborate?

The people with the most money generally hold the most power.

(09-27-2023 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:22 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... in last week's terrific article by Steve Berkowitz and Kirk Bohls in USA Today (linked on the board by Hokie4Skins and well-summarized and analyzed by Bullet, JRsec and others). ICYMI, the gist of the article was that both UT and OU ended up paying pennies on the dollar on their contractual exit fees from the Big XII:

ESPN
“After Texas and Oklahoma made the decision to change conferences, those schools, along with the Big 12 and SEC, chose to accelerate the process and transition a year earlier," ESPN said in statement. "At that time, the media partners were brought in to reach a resolution that would satisfy all parties for the 2024-25 season.”

Brett Yormark
“This was a business decision. Historically the withdrawal from a conference has resulted in a negotiated settlement, and we believe we landed in a good place. Our future is as bright as it’s ever been.”

Kansas State athletic director Gene Taylor
The settlement left the athletics directors at some of the continuing Big 12 schools “kind of dumbfounded. We fought back as hard as we could,” but Taylor said the conference’s lawyers advised them, Yormark and the schools’ presidents and chancellors that the bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.”

Thoughts or elaboration on any of these insider perspectives?

And how might this discounted Big XII settlement impact (or even expedite) what we could see from any malcontents that seem to be itching for a way to exit the ACC prior to the expiration of John Swofford's ironclad GoR in 2036?

Brett Yormark was complicit with the exit of Oklahoma and Texas, the same will not be the case with the ACC membership.

Jim Phillips is a Big 10 man. Good luck with that theory.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(09-27-2023 11:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My guess? The Big12 got favored conference status from ESPN during their death match with the Pac12 in exchange for playing ball on reasonable exit terms for UT/OU. ESPN did not have to accelerate renewal talks with the Big12. Agreeing to those early renegotiation talks was huge for the Big12.

(09-28-2023 06:24 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 04:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  .

100%.

It helps get the ball rolling on the four phase plan.

Phase I: add Stan/Cal/SMU pro rata
Phase II: FSU & Clem (maybe a third school) exit, Media deal per school remains intact. Plus, some reasonable negotiated GOR exit fees add to the war chest.
Phase III: add three-to-six more schools at pro-rata, or at 50% pro-rata to get total media deal back up to Phase I level (even if split across more schools). Legacy schools remain whole and maybe Stan/Cal/SMU get a raise out of the deal (but not yet to full media shares).
Phase IV: The rest of the Mag 7 exit stage left, again negotiating “reasonable” early GOR exits, probably for fewer $$ per team than FSU/Clem because by now we’re a couple years closer to the end of the GOR. Media deal remains essentially whole for all remaining teams.

ESPN goes from significantly underpaying for the back end of the original ACC deal to paying the same $$ for a less high powered league (but a fair price vs underpaying). For their trouble they have the next round of consolidation lined up. Depending on how many of those 7 head to the SEC (let’s say it’s 5) then it’s a big net win for the world wide leader.
Teams like Stan/Cal/SMU probably have to be happy where they are, or wait until 2036 GOR if they want to go B1G.

This is where your plan goes off the rails.

I doubt there are enough schools available to replace exiting ACC programs to keep the remaining ACC schools from jumping to The Big 12.

The future of The ACC depends not on who leaves but the number of programs that leave.

Speaking as strictly a Louisville fan, Memphis would be the only available school I would be interested in The ACC adding. Beyond that I would rather take Memphis and present ACC members to The Big 12.

You are probably right… But to the original point it’s the seven motivated to leave and the four phase plan gets all seven out early with at least some semblance of setting up the others with options (whether in or outside of the league).

If PAC had wanted to take care of wSU/OSU then they should have expanded before folks started hopping off.

This sets up the legacy planning and whether there’s a few legacy teams left after the bulk of the league moves on, or a recognizable core of the league surviving, remains to be seen.

To me it was a move setting change in motion — the change leads naturally to more change. The votes against were CYA for some sort of plausible deniability.

(09-27-2023 11:55 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:53 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  We fought back as hard as we could,” Kansas State athletic director Gene Taylor said, but the conference’s lawyers advised them, Yormark and the schools’ presidents and chancellors that the bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.”

Any or all P2 left-behinds in the ACC wouldn't face the same sort of uncertainties?

Exactly. It's not a matter of 'complicit.' It's a matter of 'How likely are you to win in court if you try to stop this?'

(Arguing with your commissioner in a Zoom meeting isn't at all the same kind of 'fight' that legal action would be.)

We can be sure all of this being watched with great interest by some in the Eastern time zone.

Yawn. Wake me up when FSU or some other ACC school grows some stones, exits the conference with no parachute, then sues to get back their media rights. Unless and until that happens, everyone is just blowing smoke.

(09-27-2023 11:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My guess? The Big12 got favored conference status from ESPN during their death match with the Pac12 in exchange for playing ball on reasonable exit terms for UT/OU. ESPN did not have to accelerate renewal talks with the Big12. Agreeing to those early renegotiation talks was huge for the Big12.

I thought this was the case at the time, and it might still be correct, but since that Big 12 deal last fall, we've found out that ESPN offered basically the same deal to the Pac FIRST and the Pac turned it down. If the Pac hadn't been so full of irrational confidence like The Microwave last summer/fall, they'd be the ones with the ACC-like media rights agreement and we'd all be smiling knowingly every time we looked at or thought about that little rump Big 12. ESPN might have moved from $30m to $31.7m partly due to Yormark's assurance that he'd facilitate OUT's early exit I suppose, but that wasn't necessary to work something out, and Yormark would have signed for $30m in the end b/c he knew he had to sign up before the Pac came to their senses.

(09-28-2023 12:04 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 11:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 10:25 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:22 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... in last week's terrific article by Steve Berkowitz and Kirk Bohls in USA Today (linked on the board by Hokie4Skins and well-summarized and analyzed by Bullet, JRsec and others). ICYMI, the gist of the article was that both UT and OU ended up paying pennies on the dollar on their contractual exit fees from the Big XII:

ESPN
“After Texas and Oklahoma made the decision to change conferences, those schools, along with the Big 12 and SEC, chose to accelerate the process and transition a year earlier," ESPN said in statement. "At that time, the media partners were brought in to reach a resolution that would satisfy all parties for the 2024-25 season.”

Brett Yormark
“This was a business decision. Historically the withdrawal from a conference has resulted in a negotiated settlement, and we believe we landed in a good place. Our future is as bright as it’s ever been.”

Kansas State athletic director Gene Taylor
The settlement left the athletics directors at some of the continuing Big 12 schools “kind of dumbfounded. We fought back as hard as we could,” but Taylor said the conference’s lawyers advised them, Yormark and the schools’ presidents and chancellors that the bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.”

Thoughts or elaboration on any of these insider perspectives?

And how might this discounted Big XII settlement impact (or even expedite) what we could see from any malcontents that seem to be itching for a way to exit the ACC prior to the expiration of John Swofford's ironclad GoR in 2036?

Brett Yormark was complicit with the exit of Oklahoma and Texas, the same will not be the case with the ACC membership.

How many ACC presidents does it take to fire Swofford and install a puppet commissioner that will be complicit?

Because you can promise an at least equivalent conference to everyone except Wake, Syracuse, and BC, if the networks want to pay for it.

The three new adds are easily bought. Stanford and Cal will vote to dissolve the ACC in a nanosecond to join the B1G and the other California schools. SMU will gladly join Louisville and Pitt in the Big XII.

It all boils down to what UNC wants really. And if UNC and UVA are aligned (either to move together or separate) then the ACC will cease to exist.

So as usual, the ACC's future is in Carolina's hands.

0. Swofford has been gone for 2 1/2 years.

As for the rest of what you wrote? The ACC ceased to be in UNC's hands when Calford and SMU were added against Carolina's wishes. The others clearly expect UNC to depart with FSU and Clemson. Today? 2036? Sometime in between? It really matters not, they're already lame ducks.

You're right, I was thinking Phillips but wrote Swofford.

I still think those 3 no votes are a bit of theater though, since all 3 new schools (Cal, Stanford, SMU) are easy to buy off into "yes,dissolve" votes.

If UNC was planning to leave, they could easily have got a 4th no vote (Duke, UVA, NCState) by picking one of them to join them in the SEC (or B1G).

It's incongruous that the Mag 7 are all planning to leave before 2036 and have some sort of handshake agreement with the SEC or B1G based on them departing the ACC unencumbered but then 4 of the 7 voted to make it harder to leave the ACC by adding CalFord and SMU? Does not compute.

It cannot be both ways, if there's actually a Magnificent 7, then the addition of those 3 new teams must help, not harm, their cause of leaving before 2036.

OU couldn't get OSU into the Pac or SEC. Texas couldn't get Texas Tech into the SEC (or perhaps the Pac either depending upon whom you believe). But, magically, UNC gets to choose their own tagalong? I know that the SEC has been lusting after UNC far longer than my Aggies have been in the Conference, UNC isn't nearly as desirable as they were even a few short years ago. We could take FSU/Clemson and quite happily stop at 18, and if UNC tried to coerce us into bringing along a little brother, then that's exactly what would happen. And that goes for the B1G, too. Both of us are getting more and more stingy as we grow and per team payouts also grow. Perhaps UNC's administration knows that now, perhaps not, but it's obvious to me that UNC actually voted no for no other reason than the ridiculous travel burden that the new schools would place on the existing ACC members.

Sometimes, schools try to be clever and throw out confusing signals in order to keep people guessing, but too often people assume that there is subterfuge afoot when the simplest explanation is also the right one.

(09-28-2023 01:53 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Only Larry Scott sucks more. Awful terrible commish who ruined a once great conference. He should be sued

What Conference did Yormark ruin? I think that the Big 12 is in better shape now than when he joined. Or are you talking about the Pac12? You know, the same Pac 12 that lost its 4 top Brands to the B1G, then 6 of the remaining 8 split between the Big 12 and ACC? Do you think that convincing CU to return to the Big 12 after a dozen mostly terrible years in the Pac qualifies as ruining the Pac?

I think Yormark has done an excellent job with the Big 12, but he deserves very, very little credit for killing off the Pac. The B1G shot the Pac in the heart, the brain, the liver, and the spleen, then Yormark wandered upon them as they were about to breathe their very last breath, and he put them out of their misery with a mercy killing shot, only he missed and hit them in the knee, then the ACC came by and shot them in the other knee, but now they got a medivac chopper...ok, I really need to stop, this analogy is way out of control. The point is, Yormark didn't kill the Pac, the Pac killed the Pac.

(09-28-2023 04:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 10:25 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:22 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... in last week's terrific article by Steve Berkowitz and Kirk Bohls in USA Today (linked on the board by Hokie4Skins and well-summarized and analyzed by Bullet, JRsec and others). ICYMI, the gist of the article was that both UT and OU ended up paying pennies on the dollar on their contractual exit fees from the Big XII:

ESPN
“After Texas and Oklahoma made the decision to change conferences, those schools, along with the Big 12 and SEC, chose to accelerate the process and transition a year earlier," ESPN said in statement. "At that time, the media partners were brought in to reach a resolution that would satisfy all parties for the 2024-25 season.”

Brett Yormark
“This was a business decision. Historically the withdrawal from a conference has resulted in a negotiated settlement, and we believe we landed in a good place. Our future is as bright as it’s ever been.”

Kansas State athletic director Gene Taylor
The settlement left the athletics directors at some of the continuing Big 12 schools “kind of dumbfounded. We fought back as hard as we could,” but Taylor said the conference’s lawyers advised them, Yormark and the schools’ presidents and chancellors that the bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.”

Thoughts or elaboration on any of these insider perspectives?

And how might this discounted Big XII settlement impact (or even expedite) what we could see from any malcontents that seem to be itching for a way to exit the ACC prior to the expiration of John Swofford's ironclad GoR in 2036?

Brett Yormark was complicit with the exit of Oklahoma and Texas, the same will not be the case with the ACC membership.

How many ACC presidents does it take to fire Swofford and install a puppet commissioner that will be complicit?

Because you can promise an at least equivalent conference to everyone except Wake, Syracuse, and BC, if the networks want to pay for it.

The three new adds are easily bought. Stanford and Cal will vote to dissolve the ACC in a nanosecond to join the B1G and the other California schools. SMU will gladly join Louisville and Pitt in the Big XII.

It all boils down to what UNC wants really. And if UNC and UVA are aligned (either to move together or separate) then the ACC will cease to exist.

So as usual, the ACC's future is in Carolina's hands.

Johnny didn't get fired, he retired
Swofford was in my class at Carolina ('71) and Delany was a year older ('70). Both worked about 5 years beyond normal retirement age.

BTW, the real power of the ACC rests in Durham, not Chapel Hill.

Statements like this are nonsensical. People used to say that real power in the Big 12 was in Austin, then the Big 12 proceeded to lose their top half and secured significant yearly raises until the 2030s. The "real power" in the SEC is in Birmingham, yet Sankey couldn't even get us to agree on a 9th Conference game a few months ago. The "real power" in the B1G is Warren, no, wait, Petitti...but, um, then why did Michigan just cost everybody $5m a year b/c they didn't want to play home games in November? Why didn't the Presidents let Warren add UW and UO in summer 2022 instead of summer 2023? The "real power" in the Pac is Calford, yet they couldn't hold the conference together and in fact had to beg their way into the ACC by accepting a Rutgers-like $15-20m haircut for a decade. The B1G then gave them a hard "NO" while the 4c glided into roughly twice as much money from the Big 12. I'm pretty sure that Sankey, Calford, and whomever was really calling the shots at the Big 12 office would have predicted any of this happening.

Some schools have more influence than others, sure, but I'd say that, right now, nobody is in charge of the ACC. It's every school for themselves. Each school has one vote, and they'll support the Conference...as long as it also helps their school.

(09-30-2023 01:07 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 11:55 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Exactly. It's not a matter of 'complicit.' It's a matter of 'How likely are you to win in court if you try to stop this?'

(Arguing with your commissioner in a Zoom meeting isn't at all the same kind of 'fight' that legal action would be.)

We can be sure all of this being watched with great interest by some in the Eastern time zone.

Yawn. Wake me up when FSU or some other ACC school grows some stones, exits the conference with no parachute, then sues to get back their media rights. Unless and until that happens, everyone is just blowing smoke.

Wake someone who's tapping away his spins on the topic at all hours already?

No need. We'll just put on more coffee.

(09-28-2023 04:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 12:04 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 11:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 10:25 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  Brett Yormark was complicit with the exit of Oklahoma and Texas, the same will not be the case with the ACC membership.

How many ACC presidents does it take to fire Swofford and install a puppet commissioner that will be complicit?

Because you can promise an at least equivalent conference to everyone except Wake, Syracuse, and BC, if the networks want to pay for it.

The three new adds are easily bought. Stanford and Cal will vote to dissolve the ACC in a nanosecond to join the B1G and the other California schools. SMU will gladly join Louisville and Pitt in the Big XII.

It all boils down to what UNC wants really. And if UNC and UVA are aligned (either to move together or separate) then the ACC will cease to exist.

So as usual, the ACC's future is in Carolina's hands.

0. Swofford has been gone for 2 1/2 years.

As for the rest of what you wrote? The ACC ceased to be in UNC's hands when Calford and SMU were added against Carolina's wishes. The others clearly expect UNC to depart with FSU and Clemson. Today? 2036? Sometime in between? It really matters not, they're already lame ducks.

You're right, I was thinking Phillips but wrote Swofford.

I still think those 3 no votes are a bit of theater though, since all 3 new schools (Cal, Stanford, SMU) are easy to buy off into "yes,dissolve" votes.

If UNC was planning to leave, they could easily have got a 4th no vote (Duke, UVA, NCState) by picking one of them to join them in the SEC (or B1G).

It's incongruous that the Mag 7 are all planning to leave before 2036 and have some sort of handshake agreement with the SEC or B1G based on them departing the ACC unencumbered but then 4 of the 7 voted to make it harder to leave the ACC by adding CalFord and SMU? Does not compute.

It cannot be both ways, if there's actually a Magnificent 7, then the addition of those 3 new teams must help, not harm, their cause of leaving before 2036.

100%.

It helps get the ball rolling on the four phase plan.

Phase I: add Stan/Cal/SMU pro rata
Phase II: FSU & Clem (maybe a third school) exit, Media deal per school remains intact. Plus, some reasonable negotiated GOR exit fees add to the war chest.
Phase III: add three-to-six more schools at pro-rata, or at 50% pro-rata to get total media deal back up to Phase I level (even if split across more schools). Legacy schools remain whole and maybe Stan/Cal/SMU get a raise out of the deal (but not yet to full media shares).
Phase IV: The rest of the Mag 7 exit stage left, again negotiating “reasonable” early GOR exits, probably for fewer $$ per team than FSU/Clem because by now we’re a couple years closer to the end of the GOR. Media deal remains essentially whole for all remaining teams.

ESPN goes from significantly underpaying for the back end of the original ACC deal to paying the same $$ for a less high powered league (but a fair price vs underpaying). For their trouble they have the next round of consolidation lined up. Depending on how many of those 7 head to the SEC (let’s say it’s 5) then it’s a big net win for the world wide leader.
Teams like Stan/Cal/SMU probably have to be happy where they are, or wait until 2036 GOR if they want to go B1G.

To answer you and Beep at the same time, let's spin this another way.

Don't focus on teams initially. Focus on the Network. If you are ESPN and you can put the Disney crap in the back of your mind and focus on your product, and you want to use the growing animus within the ACC to your advantage, where are your concerns, where are the ACC's inherent structural weaknesses, and how do you use them to your advantage?

First of all you don't want the crutch of the inherently hobbled conference to be yanked away, so you do what you can to appease Notre Dame. Hello Cal and Stanford. You recognize the inherent weakness of having 6 ACC schools out of 14 full members residing in only 2 states North Carolina and Virginia neither of which is strong in football. And you use the amped up concerns of Florida State and Clemson, and the other football first schools to your advantage.

You are ESPN rights holder to the most football frenzied conference in America, the SEC, who sits smack dab on top of the best culture to support college football remaining in the United States and you can enhance it further, possibly spreading it into North Carolina and Virginia for marketing purposes.

You approach North Carolina and Virginia's administration and sell them on the direness of their present circumstances as a conference ill positioned to compete with the SEC and Big 10 in national exposure, recruiting, or financially. You ascertain how much Virginia and UNC want to hold onto what they have, or how fearful they are for their own future. You discover that Virginia is quite content to remain as they are. And to your surprise you find that while the administration of North Carolina is quite content with the same as Virginia, that their donors and fan base are not.

So you lay out 2 plans for them to choose from. Both plans are designed to end the rancor within the ACC as a sports conference. Both plans start the same way.
And in both cases the additions of Cal, Stanford, and SMU are the first step, which is now accomplished.

Plan #1: Three schools are added to the ACC 2 of which are academic stalwarts which pride themselves on an all sports approach in which football is not necessarily the most important objective. And non revenue sports are more greatly appreciated. This lines up quite nicely with Virginia, Syracuse, North Carolina and Duke, and is not in conflict with the pursuits of Notre Dame. This pisses off Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and N.C. State. In fact it bolsters the arguments that Clemson and Florida State have laid out for reasons to leave the ACC.

The goal of plan one is a negotiated settlement which permits the ACC to emphasize its all sports focus, with basketball as the centerpiece and amicably separate from the forces pulling it apart right now, the football first schools who rightfully are fighting for their own survival and public identity.

ESPN is in perfect position to reward that which strengthens the identity preferred by the ACC's historically lead schools, fits with a major school to the North (Syracuse), and appeases their partial member giant Notre Dame. Acquiescing to this would be Duke, Boston College, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Louisville.

Pittsburgh would be ambivalent.

In opposition: Clemson, Florida State, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Of those 5 only 3 are adamant about the situation. The issue however is that the two which are less adamant are two schools which if they departed would relieve some the market overload in Virginia and North Carolina.

In the SEC Sankey wants schools which will hold their own financially and in performance but wants new markets. But he also wants to defend the main turf of the SEC against the commercial interference of a Big 10 presence.

Moving, Florida State, Miami, and Clemson to the SEC would be acceptable. N.C. State puts them into a new market.

Then with the addition of South Florida the ACC covers the exit of the Florida schools and keeps a presence in the Sunshine State.

The SEC moves to 20 with the aforementioned. SEC makes them all more valuable in the Fall and ESPN profits from this. At 14 plus 1 the ACC has some other needs. West Virginia gives Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech some relief for football interest. The ACC holds. Tulane bridges the gap between S.M.U. and the ACC.

Why Tulane? It gives Notre Dame games in Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Georgia, and California, something which the Big 10 cannot do.

The ACC settles in at 16 plus one.

Why, you ask does N.C. State change its vote. UNC needed to appear in opposition and N.C. State changes its vote to have a better legal appearance in the move. N.C. State knows it advances and UNC knows it gets more of the old ACC feel back by letting them go and ESPN approves to lessen the ACC overload in North Carolina and to double dip with the SEC in North Carolina. And most of all this keeps Notre Dame comfortable.

Plan #2: North Carolina and Virginia are not sold on the viability long term of Plan #1 and want the greater exposure for themselves.

Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Duke and Kansas head to the SEC.
Notre Dame, Stanford, Miami, and Georgia Tech head to the Big 10.

Both the SEC and Big 10 stand at 22.

Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech head to the Big 12. The Big 12 stands at 20 and can grow more to the West.

Why would ESPN agree to this plan? They keep 50% interest in 5 of the ACC schools, and 100% interest in 5 more. They lose the #3 draw in Florida while keeping the #1 and #2 draw in that state. They lose the #2 draw in Georgia, but that draw only carries 15% of the state and 49% of Atlanta. They only rented Stanford for a short period of time, and Notre Dame only gave them 2 games one year and 3 on the second year. Losses acceptable for the gains and the enhanced value of those moving to the SEC. And they reduce overhead by not having to pay 3 schools, only paying half for 5 more, and only adding 35 million more for 5 more ACC schools.

(09-27-2023 10:48 PM)Todor Wrote:  Someone just got paid off to make a decision and leave the remaining schools screwed.

Yormark wants to be the next SEC commissioner

(09-30-2023 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 04:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 12:04 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  You're right, I was thinking Phillips but wrote Swofford.

I still think those 3 no votes are a bit of theater though, since all 3 new schools (Cal, Stanford, SMU) are easy to buy off into "yes,dissolve" votes.

If UNC was planning to leave, they could easily have got a 4th no vote (Duke, UVA, NCState) by picking one of them to join them in the SEC (or B1G).

It's incongruous that the Mag 7 are all planning to leave before 2036 and have some sort of handshake agreement with the SEC or B1G based on them departing the ACC unencumbered but then 4 of the 7 voted to make it harder to leave the ACC by adding CalFord and SMU? Does not compute.

It cannot be both ways, if there's actually a Magnificent 7, then the addition of those 3 new teams must help, not harm, their cause of leaving before 2036.

100%.

It helps get the ball rolling on the four phase plan.

Phase I: add Stan/Cal/SMU pro rata
Phase II: FSU & Clem (maybe a third school) exit, Media deal per school remains intact. Plus, some reasonable negotiated GOR exit fees add to the war chest.
Phase III: add three-to-six more schools at pro-rata, or at 50% pro-rata to get total media deal back up to Phase I level (even if split across more schools). Legacy schools remain whole and maybe Stan/Cal/SMU get a raise out of the deal (but not yet to full media shares).
Phase IV: The rest of the Mag 7 exit stage left, again negotiating “reasonable” early GOR exits, probably for fewer $$ per team than FSU/Clem because by now we’re a couple years closer to the end of the GOR. Media deal remains essentially whole for all remaining teams.

ESPN goes from significantly underpaying for the back end of the original ACC deal to paying the same $$ for a less high powered league (but a fair price vs underpaying). For their trouble they have the next round of consolidation lined up. Depending on how many of those 7 head to the SEC (let’s say it’s 5) then it’s a big net win for the world wide leader.
Teams like Stan/Cal/SMU probably have to be happy where they are, or wait until 2036 GOR if they want to go B1G.

To answer you and Beep at the same time, let's spin this another way.

Don't focus on teams initially. Focus on the Network. If you are ESPN and you can put the Disney crap in the back of your mind and focus on your product, and you want to use the growing animus within the ACC to your advantage, where are your concerns, where are the ACC's inherent structural weaknesses, and how do you use them to your advantage?

First of all you don't want the crutch of the inherently hobbled conference to be yanked away, so you do what you can to appease Notre Dame. Hello Cal and Stanford. You recognize the inherent weakness of having 6 ACC schools out of 14 full members residing in only 2 states North Carolina and Virginia neither of which is strong in football. And you use the amped up concerns of Florida State and Clemson, and the other football first schools to your advantage.

You are ESPN rights holder to the most football frenzied conference in America, the SEC, who sits smack dab on top of the best culture to support college football remaining in the United States and you can enhance it further, possibly spreading it into North Carolina and Virginia for marketing purposes.

You approach North Carolina and Virginia's administration and sell them on the direness of their present circumstances as a conference ill positioned to compete with the SEC and Big 10 in national exposure, recruiting, or financially. You ascertain how much Virginia and UNC want to hold onto what they have, or how fearful they are for their own future. You discover that Virginia is quite content to remain as they are. And to your surprise you find that while the administration of North Carolina is quite content with the same as Virginia, that their donors and fan base are not.

So you lay out 2 plans for them to choose from. Both plans are designed to end the rancor within the ACC as a sports conference. Both plans start the same way.
And in both cases the additions of Cal, Stanford, and SMU are the first step, which is now accomplished.

Plan #1: Three schools are added to the ACC 2 of which are academic stalwarts which pride themselves on an all sports approach in which football is not necessarily the most important objective. And non revenue sports are more greatly appreciated. This lines up quite nicely with Virginia, Syracuse, North Carolina and Duke, and is not in conflict with the pursuits of Notre Dame. This pisses off Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and N.C. State. In fact it bolsters the arguments that Clemson and Florida State have laid out for reasons to leave the ACC.

The goal of plan one is a negotiated settlement which permits the ACC to emphasize its all sports focus, with basketball as the centerpiece and amicably separate from the forces pulling it apart right now, the football first schools who rightfully are fighting for their own survival and public identity.

ESPN is in perfect position to reward that which strengthens the identity preferred by the ACC's historically lead schools, fits with a major school to the North (Syracuse), and appeases their partial member giant Notre Dame. Acquiescing to this would be Duke, Boston College, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Louisville.

Pittsburgh would be ambivalent.

In opposition: Clemson, Florida State, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Of those 5 only 3 are adamant about the situation. The issue however is that the two which are less adamant are two schools which if they departed would relieve some the market overload in Virginia and North Carolina.

In the SEC Sankey wants schools which will hold their own financially and in performance but wants new markets. But he also wants to defend the main turf of the SEC against the commercial interference of a Big 10 presence.

Moving, Florida State, Miami, and Clemson to the SEC would be acceptable. N.C. State puts them into a new market.

Then with the addition of South Florida the ACC covers the exit of the Florida schools and keeps a presence in the Sunshine State.

The SEC moves to 20 with the aforementioned. SEC makes them all more valuable in the Fall and ESPN profits from this. At 14 plus 1 the ACC has some other needs. West Virginia gives Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech some relief for football interest. The ACC holds. Tulane bridges the gap between S.M.U. and the ACC.

Why Tulane? It gives Notre Dame games in Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Georgia, and California, something which the Big 10 cannot do.

The ACC settles in at 16 plus one.

Why, you ask does N.C. State change its vote. UNC needed to appear in opposition and N.C. State changes its vote to have a better legal appearance in the move. N.C. State knows it advances and UNC knows it gets more of the old ACC feel back by letting them go and ESPN approves to lessen the ACC overload in North Carolina and to double dip with the SEC in North Carolina. And most of all this keeps Notre Dame comfortable.

Plan #2: North Carolina and Virginia are not sold on the viability long term of Plan #1 and want the greater exposure for themselves.

Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Duke and Kansas head to the SEC.
Notre Dame, Stanford, Miami, and Georgia Tech head to the Big 10.

Both the SEC and Big 10 stand at 22.

Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech head to the Big 12. The Big 12 stands at 20 and can grow more to the West.

Why would ESPN agree to this plan? They keep 50% interest in 5 of the ACC schools, and 100% interest in 5 more. They lose the #3 draw in Florida while keeping the #1 and #2 draw in that state. They lose the #2 draw in Georgia, but that draw only carries 15% of the state and 49% of Atlanta. They only rented Stanford for a short period of time, and Notre Dame only gave them 2 games one year and 3 on the second year. Losses acceptable for the gains and the enhanced value of those moving to the SEC. And they reduce overhead by not having to pay 3 schools, only paying half for 5 more, and only adding 35 million more for 5 more ACC schools.

All interesting thoughts from all three posters.

My inclination is to say that UNC will be exiting as they voted against expansion and that sets the groundwork for grievance. If NC State was planning on leaving then I tend to think they're the ones that vote 'no.' I could be wrong, but the idea of shuffling the pieces around so UNC, Duke, and Virginia can get something more akin to the old ACC back is intriguing in itself.

I also agree with Beep that the Magnificent 7 didn't just disappear. If there's legitimate interest in leaving, and I have to think there is because we know they explored the GOR, then the only real reason they would vote for the expansion of Stanford, Cal, and SMU is to further the plan. The only exception I can think of is they simply could not get another league to agree to take them through back channels and so they gave up the ghost. I tend not to look at it that way because McMurphy himself reported one of the reasons for the expansion was to keep the ACC from falling below a certain number...15. That means they all know someone's leaving.

If JR's Plan 1 is the correct approach then I'm favor of going to 22. Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and NC State...yes. But also Virginia Tech while we're at it. They're not a legacy member of the conference and they have a nice football brand. It's a nice, sound way to get access to the VA market. We could add another in Kansas.