I want to emphasis the word safest.

FSU and Clemson do not know how the courts will rule; they could get out at a bargain price, they could get taken to the cleaners, they could even be stuck. Not to mention the soured relationships with the people they have to deal with no matter the outcome. That could/will be used against them in the future when ADs, assistant ADs, etc. are looking for new jobs or trying to put together an OOC schedule, I think it's important to maintain a good relationship with these people, that has it's own value. We can see the blackballing that has taken place with UConn, people hold grudges for a long time.

The safest and quickest solution for FSU and Clemson would be to lead a charge to dissolve the ACC. It takes 8 to do that now, but in a few months with the arrivals of SMU, Stan and Cal, it will take 10, dissolving becomes even less likely to happen then.

Of course who would vote to do that with no (or a no better) landing spot? Unless FSU and Clemson were starting their own conference, then that could be a game changer. If UNC, NCSU, UM, Pitt, VT, GT, UL were guaranteed a spot, then that is a total of 9 right there that could vote in favor of dissolving the conference and we are done; no exit fees, no more ACC entity suing us.

What about the playoff money? If the ACC is gone, then there is a 13% of $1.3b hole waiting to be filled. The 9 most competitive and valuable schools of the new conference should get a bigger % of that $1.3b while the left behinds would get a smaller %. Worse case scenario it's the same and we try to renegotiate in the 2028 "look-in", but the 9 will definitely make a better argument to receive more.

Worse case scenario all 9 of us have a new home in an existing conference if we are not able to leverage this situation in our favor.

ESPN would put a stop to that before it ever got to a planning stage.

ESPN couid refuse to contract with the new conference, but I don’t see how they could stop it.

(03-22-2024 10:11 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ESPN couid refuse to contract with the new conference, but I don’t see how they could stop it.

And if they refuse to contract with this new conference, why would they believe they could find someone else who would pay them as much as ESPN is paying them now? For that reason, if for no other, most of the other schools you list wouldn't want to join Clemson and FSU.

(03-22-2024 12:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 10:11 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ESPN couid refuse to contract with the new conference, but I don’t see how they could stop it.

And if they refuse to contract with this new conference, why would they believe they could find someone else who would pay them as much as ESPN is paying them now? For that reason, if for no other, most of the other schools you list wouldn't want to join Clemson and FSU.

I’m sure FSU and Clemson are not the only ones dismayed by the media and playoff monies. The scenario I painted is safe in the sense that if a conference does not materialize, each of these members have a landing spot in the P2 or B12.

The only way I see this being even a remote possibility is if the high-value brands keep the GoR with them. Yes, it would take 12 years to go to open market, but:
1. They'd get a better contract when it happens
2. They'd get better CFP rankings due to perceived SoS
3. They'd get more ticket income due to more attractive scheduling

I don't think this is a way out of the GoR, but it might be a way for the high-value brands to separate themselves(?) That seems to be the name of the game lately...

(03-22-2024 02:26 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The only way I see this being even a remote possibility is if the high-value brands keep the GoR with them. Yes, it would take 12 years to go to open market, but:
1. They'd get a better contract when it happens
2. They'd get better CFP rankings due to perceived SoS
3. They'd get more ticket income due to more attractive scheduling

I don't think this is a way out of the GoR, but it might be a way for the high-value brands to separate themselves(?) That seems to be the name of the game lately...

If the ACC is dissolved, there is no conference that can stick them to a GoRs. Further, what good does a GoRs do if unhappy members will still try to find a way out? And do you want to keep an unhappy member to begin with? Keep the most valuable members happy and they won't want to leave, the least valuable members should try to work hard to make themselves in disposable, but I suppose that would require honesty and a sense of self awareness.

I went through this exercise dozens of times before, but if you are new around here I will do it once more for your benefit:

A new conference with FSU and Clemson is not a bad start, the new wrinkle is that UNC is starting to get louder in their camp, could they be swayed? For fun, lets include them.

FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, - I think these 7 are the easy choices. I feel like UNC will insist on UVA and VT is politically attached to them. I feel 9 is a good stopping point until you can reassess how to proceed, Pitt get's in on history with VT and Miami and UNC and UVA likes their academics. The charter members are FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, UVA and Pitt.

UL joins the B12. Duke, Wake, BC, SU joins the BE and goes Indy in football.

Why would either FSU or Clemson settle for being the founders of a #3 conference, rather than joining one of the P2 for the big money?

(03-22-2024 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Why would either FSU or Clemson settle for being the founders of a #3 conference, rather than joining one of the P2 for the big money?

^ This. The only reason for Clemson, Florida State and UNC to move into anything other than a P2 league is because they need some sort of temporary transitional warehousing option. There is no reason to suppose they will face that need.

The OP overestimates the risks of 'offending' people. Dozens of schools have shifted conference affiliations in recent years. Everyone sues, fans have a kerfuffle, everyone settles, people chill.

And everyone knows the P2 calls the shots now. That's official. It's in writing. The whole college sports world knows that schools with nationally ambitious programs need to get on the right side of the line if they aren't already—and fast.

(03-23-2024 04:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Why would either FSU or Clemson settle for being the founders of a #3 conference, rather than joining one of the P2 for the big money?

^ This. The only reason for Clemson, Florida State and UNC to move into anything other than a P2 league is because they need some sort of temporary transitional warehousing option. There is no reason to suppose they will face that need.

The OP overestimates the risks of 'offending' people. Dozens of schools have shifted conference affiliations in recent years. Everyone sues, fans have a kerfuffle, everyone settles, people chill.

And everyone knows the P2 calls the shots now. That's official. It's in writing. The whole college sports world knows that schools with nationally ambitious programs need to get on the right side of the line if they aren't already—and fast.

I also argue that dissolving or attempting to dissolve the conference would be cheaper then paying exit fees to it. Is that true or not?

Even if you assume that the conference can be dissolved by a simple majority of 9 votes (which I do not assume), why would you assume that ESPN would be willing to give up roughly $150 million a year in revenue from the ACCN without a fight?

And without the roughly $10 million each school gets from the ACCN, why do you assume a new league would in any meaningful way close the revenue gap with the P2? Or even separate themselves from the Big 12 financially?

(03-23-2024 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  Even if you assume that the conference can be dissolved by a simple majority of 9 votes (which I do not assume), why would you assume that ESPN would be willing to give up roughly $150 million a year in revenue from the ACCN without a fight?

And without the roughly $10 million each school gets from the ACCN, why do you assume a new league would in any meaningful way close the revenue gap with the P2? Or even separate themselves from the Big 12 financially?

Chopping off the bottom 1/3 of the current ACC would in theory make the ACC more profitable, this whole realignment mess was always about ratings and now the 12 team playoff payouts add the extra layer of past playoff appearances. So in theory, less becomes more.

I’m not expecting the theoretical new conference to have as big of a media deal as the P2, at least not right off the bat. It will take a full media term to prove the real value year after year after year. I do believe the top 9 teams can showcase highly rated games. In my example, I have FSU vs GT, FSU vs VT, Clem vs VT, Clem vs Miami, VT vs NCSU, UNC vs Clem, UNC vs FSU as annual games in additional to ones we always got. That’s a lot of good games to feature in the season. There wouid of course be expansion plans and it will likely include some from the ACC left behinds as well WVU and maybe others from the B12 depending on the cfb landscape.

The ACCN is profitable now, but might not be so in a few years. Just because the B12 does not have a network does not mean they are not making money from tier 3 content.

I don’t expect a conference to ever catch up to P2 profitability, but dissolving a conference wouid be cheaper than the exit fee. I guess some people would prefer to build their own house to all of their customizations than to buy an existing house. Which path sounds more like FSU? I offer only the possibility.

I don't think ESPN or Fox needs the inventory. If ESPN loses the ACC they can easily fill in with properties they already own. They would likely put the money towards the next SEC/B1G contract. The question is, would CBS or NBC step up with P2-ish money? My guess is no.

So, I prolly PO'd some of the fans not included in the 9 I selected for the new conference, I just want you to know that the 9 I selected was not necessarily my favorites, UNC coming a long would prolly insist on UVA and I'd have left them out under most circumstances, but their football value can increase under this setup with annual games vs FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc. so let's talk about the ones that were out:

SMU, Cal, Stan - it's a bridge too far...sorry. There are a few combinations that can be marketable (UVA vs Cal, UM vs Stan), but they were voted against by FSU, Clem and UNC, so it's a no go. Good luck rebuilding the PAC, I believe that between y'all and WOSU you can get a solid 8-9.

SU, BC - I really like SU and I believe FSU, UM, Pitt would really like to include you. I feel bad for BC because their brand could never really gain traction. I think that if the OBE schools had it's own division that BC would have done better and not have been stuck in neutral. When expansion goes to 12 or more, be ready.

Wake - I don't really have much to say other than they punch above their weight. If they can find a place to park their basketball and non-revenue sports they can do well as an Indy in football.

Duke - I think the new conference would/should give them a ND type of deal because of the basketball brand and history, but the football is just a big negative. Accept a 3 game guarantee and you are in.

ND - I never had a problem with your partial membership, so if you're on board to accept the same deal, then welcome.

UL - gotta say this was the toughest choice of all, the B12 will be lucky to have you all, but being the newest guys and being the academic black sheep might have you on the outside looking in. I don't think there was enough time to create a lasting bond with the rest of us, your closest ally would be FSU. We had some good times, hoping that future expansion is more favorable toward you.


So that makes a solid 11 members starting out: FSU, Clem, UM, GT, UNC, NCSU, UVA, VT, Pitt, (Duke, ND partial). In a basketball 20 game conference schedule everybody plays each other twice. In football, we have 8 games in a round robin.

ND will have annual games vs UM and Pitt, rotate the other 3 with everybody else.

Duke will only have annual games vs NCSU, UNC and UVA.

Annual money games: FSU vs Clem, FSU vs UM, FSU vs VT, FSU vs GT, FSU vs UNC, Clem vs GT, Clem vs UNC, Clem vs UM, Clem vs VT, UM vs Pitt, UM vs VT

Bi-annual money games: UM vs ND, Pitt vs ND, ND vs ??, ND vs ??, ND vs ??, FSU vs UF, Clem vs USC, GT vs UGA

This new conference would have a minimum of 15 "money games" to choose from and spread out in the season, not to mention the other compelling OOC matchups and key conference rivalries that could be broadcast. If someone like Miami tanks, there is plenty of other inventory to feature from that week.

(03-22-2024 09:13 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I went through this exercise dozens of times before, but if you are new around here I will do it once more for your benefit:

A new conference with FSU and Clemson is not a bad start, the new wrinkle is that UNC is starting to get louder in their camp, could they be swayed? For fun, lets include them.

FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, - I think these 7 are the easy choices. I feel like UNC will insist on UVA and VT is politically attached to them. I feel 9 is a good stopping point until you can reassess how to proceed, Pitt get's in on history with VT and Miami and UNC and UVA likes their academics. The charter members are FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, UVA and Pitt.

UL joins the B12. Duke, Wake, BC, SU joins the BE and goes Indy in football.

Independent in football is a tough place to be.

(03-23-2024 01:53 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 09:13 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I went through this exercise dozens of times before, but if you are new around here I will do it once more for your benefit:

A new conference with FSU and Clemson is not a bad start, the new wrinkle is that UNC is starting to get louder in their camp, could they be swayed? For fun, lets include them.

FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, - I think these 7 are the easy choices. I feel like UNC will insist on UVA and VT is politically attached to them. I feel 9 is a good stopping point until you can reassess how to proceed, Pitt get's in on history with VT and Miami and UNC and UVA likes their academics. The charter members are FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, UVA and Pitt.

UL joins the B12. Duke, Wake, BC, SU joins the BE and goes Indy in football.

Independent in football is a tough place to be.

Assuming they have a landing spot in another conference for all other sports, they’ll each have each other plus UConn and ND for scheduling. I see this as very manageable.

(03-23-2024 01:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ...I feel bad for BC because their brand could never really gain traction. I think that if the OBE schools had it's own division that BC would have done better and not have been stuck in neutral...

The ironic thing is that the new, divisionless schedule effectively does this starting this Fall. Consider that BC-Syracuse, BC-Pitt, and Pitt-Syracuse are all annual protected matchups ensures that each of the 3 Old Big East teams in the Northeast play the other two annually... well, as long as the ACC stays together and in this format.

It's sad that the ACC took so long to do what should've been done from the start. Even the 2023 annual matchups were just... wrong (remember annual games between FSU and Syracuse? GT vs Louisville?).

And it's not like there weren't plenty of people who saw it - fans on this board certainly did, and I don't think we were the only ones. ACC leadership simply dragged their feet until they were forced to act last year - possibly too late.

(03-22-2024 09:01 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I want to emphasis the word safest.

FSU and Clemson do not know how the courts will rule; they could get out at a bargain price, they could get taken to the cleaners, they could even be stuck. Not to mention the soured relationships with the people they have to deal with no matter the outcome. That could/will be used against them in the future when ADs, assistant ADs, etc. are looking for new jobs or trying to put together an OOC schedule, I think it's important to maintain a good relationship with these people, that has it's own value. We can see the blackballing that has taken place with UConn, people hold grudges for a long time.

The safest and quickest solution for FSU and Clemson would be to lead a charge to dissolve the ACC. It takes 8 to do that now, but in a few months with the arrivals of SMU, Stan and Cal, it will take 10, dissolving becomes even less likely to happen then.

Of course who would vote to do that with no (or a no better) landing spot? Unless FSU and Clemson were starting their own conference, then that could be a game changer. If UNC, NCSU, UM, Pitt, VT, GT, UL were guaranteed a spot, then that is a total of 9 right there that could vote in favor of dissolving the conference and we are done; no exit fees, no more ACC entity suing us.

What about the playoff money? If the ACC is gone, then there is a 13% of $1.3b hole waiting to be filled. The 9 most competitive and valuable schools of the new conference should get a bigger % of that $1.3b while the left behinds would get a smaller %. Worse case scenario it's the same and we try to renegotiate in the 2028 "look-in", but the 9 will definitely make a better argument to receive more.

Worse case scenario all 9 of us have a new home in an existing conference if we are not able to leverage this situation in our favor.

Out of the 1,000 threads that you have started, this might be the best of your lot.

The 17 member ACC should add 5. Two from the Big 12 (Cincinnati and West Virginia) plus Tulane and Rice and UConn and then divide into two conferences.

Group 1
Boston College, UConn, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Wake Forest, Duke, Rice, SMU, Tulane, Stanford and Cal.

And Group 2
West Virginia, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Louisville.

The Big 12 becomes a 14 member conference (with the option to go to 16 with USF and Oregon State)
UCF, Houston, Baylor, TCU, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas, KSU, Iowa State, BYU, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, ASU.


Actually the ACC would be much better off if they could trade FSU for South Carolina.

(03-23-2024 03:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 01:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ...I feel bad for BC because their brand could never really gain traction. I think that if the OBE schools had it's own division that BC would have done better and not have been stuck in neutral...

The ironic thing is that the new, divisionless schedule effectively does this starting this Fall. Consider that BC-Syracuse, BC-Pitt, and Pitt-Syracuse are all annual protected matchups ensures that each of the 3 Old Big East teams in the Northeast play the other two annually... well, as long as the ACC stays together and in this format.

It's sad that the ACC took so long to do what should've been done from the start. Even the 2023 annual matchups were just... wrong (remember annual games between FSU and Syracuse? GT vs Louisville?).

And it's not like there weren't plenty of people who saw it - fans on this board certainly did, and I don't think we were the only ones. ACC leadership simply dragged their feet until they were forced to act last year - possibly too late.

When I imagine the ACC presidents meeting together, I imagine a bunch of people who are out of touch with the football landscape. They want to play golf and rub elbows with their buddies in their luxury boxes.

BC-SU-Pitt would have made a lot of sense. I suppose VT would get Pitt as an annual, BC get's Miami, I always thought SU vs Duke had potential, but Duke football seems to want to stay regional.

FSU-GT-Clem made too much sense, so the ACC naturally did not do it.