Down goes the ACC

[AppStFan1]

Seems to me their only leg to stand on is “every other conference has raised their payout, we haven’t so the conference MUST be derelict in its duties” and that seems awfully hard to prove.

I know one thing that has made Clemson and FSU mad is that they get the same percentage as the others but they have made more and more for TV while none of the others have. They feel their slice of the pie should be bigger. I still think we will see FSU gone by 2025 or 2026 unless the ACC gives them a bigger piece of the pie, which Clemson will want as well.

[Stonewall]

They made a mistake with the length of the contract , or the lack of flexibility in amending it as things change. My opinion. I don’t see the league surviving as is. Like a bad marriage….

[AppStFan1]

They made a mistake with the length of the contract , or the lack of flexibility in amending it as things change. My opinion. I don’t see the league surviving as is. Like a bad marriage….

Definitely won't survive as is. The question is who will leave beyond FSU and what year does all this happen.

[Stonewall]

And the domino effect

[canes_mj]

Hindsight is 20/20...a lot of factors led to this point. 1. Swofford added the wrong teams...Pitt, BC, Syr...he went for markets back when that was the prevailing wisdom that regardless of the actual product you want the biggest market. That hasn't translated. Also, there was real danger of ACC teams leaving for the Big 12 (Maryland DID leave for Big 10), so there was added pressure to add teams for stability. So at the time, adding more teams and signing a long term deal seemed smart and safe. 2. The teams haven't performed...Miami and VT, the 2 football adds, have been awful. Football never developed and the additions didn't improve the other teams and level of play. ACC has had 1 good team (Clem or FSU) and the rest average or poor. Rarely have they had multiple good teams at the same time. 3. ACC has the chance to add Texas and Oklahoma some years ago, but declined to do so, when the league rejected the unequal revenue distribution caused by the Longhorn network....now, ironically, they're proposing an unequal revenue share based on performance. Had any or all of those things happened differently, TV contracts would have been much better. 4. ESPN has a lot to do with pressuring the ACC into extending the GOR...sign or no further negotiations, no ACC network...ACC could have said no...but, another bad decision....heard an interview with John Skipper on Lebatard where he all but admitted ESPN's role in all of the conference realignment...they have their hands all over all of this.

One argument FSU is making is that the actual GOR goes only until 2027(?) I think it the year...the remainder is an option to be picked up by ESPN if they choose. So the buyout if they can successfully argue it ends in 2027 would be doable. If ESPN, who owns SEC rights, wants FSU in the SEC, I'd be surprised if they didn't find a way to get this done.

Not sure how this will turn out. I actually hope they get out...ACC isn't the ACC I grew up with...it has no identity. Football never got good and in expanding it killed its basketball identity. Put the good brands in the Big 10 and SEC, get more good games...no more Wake, Pitt, BC, etc.

[AppStFan1]

Hindsight is 20/20...a lot of factors led to this point. 1. Swofford added the wrong teams...Pitt, BC, Syr...he went for markets back when that was the prevailing wisdom that regardless of the actual product you want the biggest market. That hasn't translated. Also, there was real danger of ACC teams leaving for the Big 12 (Maryland DID leave for Big 10), so there was added pressure to add teams for stability. So at the time, adding more teams and signing a long term deal seemed smart and safe. 2. The teams haven't performed...Miami and VT, the 2 football adds, have been awful. Football never developed and the additions didn't improve the other teams and level of play. ACC has had 1 good team (Clem or FSU) and the rest average or poor. Rarely have they had multiple good teams at the same time. 3. ACC has the chance to add Texas and Oklahoma some years ago, but declined to do so, when the league rejected the unequal revenue distribution caused by the Longhorn network....now, ironically, they're proposing an unequal revenue share based on performance. Had any or all of those things happened differently, TV contracts would have been much better. 4. ESPN has a lot to do with pressuring the ACC into extending the GOR...sign or no further negotiations, no ACC network...ACC could have said no...but, another bad decision....heard an interview with John Skipper on Lebatard where he all but admitted ESPN's role in all of the conference realignment...they have their hands all over all of this.

One argument FSU is making is that the actual GOR goes only until 2027(?) I think it the year...the remainder is an option to be picked up by ESPN if they choose. So the buyout if they can successfully argue it ends in 2027 would be doable. If ESPN, who owns SEC rights, wants FSU in the SEC, I'd be surprised if they didn't find a way to get this done.

Not sure how this will turn out. I actually hope they get out...ACC isn't the ACC I grew up with...it has no identity. Football never got good and in expanding it killed its basketball identity. Put the good brands in the Big 10 and SEC, get more good games...no more Wake, Pitt, BC, etc.

Swafford essentially did what CUSA and honestly even back then some of us on here and in media and around football in general felt that getting tradition rich programs who not only draw tickets but win games as well was the way to go.

Pitt, Syracuse, and BC just did not fit the region and back then I was thinking that adding teams like UCF and Memphis would be better. The ACC chose to stay academic instead of getting the best football programs and they are now paying for it.

Even though Miami and VT have not been as good they are still good adds. They are in the footprint and are name programs that people will watch. They just need to do a better job of hiring coaches.

I agree with you on the ACC. I am pulling for the league to disband and a new league to happen with a few from the ACC, AAC, and Sun Belt that could form a very good football team minus the current ACC powers of UNC, Clemson, FSU, etc.

[canes_mj]

Hindsight is 20/20...a lot of factors led to this point. 1. Swofford added the wrong teams...Pitt, BC, Syr...he went for markets back when that was the prevailing wisdom that regardless of the actual product you want the biggest market. That hasn't translated. Also, there was real danger of ACC teams leaving for the Big 12 (Maryland DID leave for Big 10), so there was added pressure to add teams for stability. So at the time, adding more teams and signing a long term deal seemed smart and safe. 2. The teams haven't performed...Miami and VT, the 2 football adds, have been awful. Football never developed and the additions didn't improve the other teams and level of play. ACC has had 1 good team (Clem or FSU) and the rest average or poor. Rarely have they had multiple good teams at the same time. 3. ACC has the chance to add Texas and Oklahoma some years ago, but declined to do so, when the league rejected the unequal revenue distribution caused by the Longhorn network....now, ironically, they're proposing an unequal revenue share based on performance. Had any or all of those things happened differently, TV contracts would have been much better. 4. ESPN has a lot to do with pressuring the ACC into extending the GOR...sign or no further negotiations, no ACC network...ACC could have said no...but, another bad decision....heard an interview with John Skipper on Lebatard where he all but admitted ESPN's role in all of the conference realignment...they have their hands all over all of this.

One argument FSU is making is that the actual GOR goes only until 2027(?) I think it the year...the remainder is an option to be picked up by ESPN if they choose. So the buyout if they can successfully argue it ends in 2027 would be doable. If ESPN, who owns SEC rights, wants FSU in the SEC, I'd be surprised if they didn't find a way to get this done.

Not sure how this will turn out. I actually hope they get out...ACC isn't the ACC I grew up with...it has no identity. Football never got good and in expanding it killed its basketball identity. Put the good brands in the Big 10 and SEC, get more good games...no more Wake, Pitt, BC, etc.

Swafford essentially did what CUSA and honestly even back then some of us on here and in media and around football in general felt that getting tradition rich programs who not only draw tickets but win games as well was the way to go.

Pitt, Syracuse, and BC just did not fit the region and back then I was thinking that adding teams like UCF and Memphis would be better. The ACC chose to stay academic instead of getting the best football programs and they are now paying for it. The evidence has been around for more than 5 years now with the Sun Belt passing the AAC and CUSA.

Even though Miami and VT have not been as good they are still good adds. They are in the footprint and are name programs that people will watch. They just need to do a better job of hiring coaches.

I sort of remember the possible adding of Texas and Oklahoma and that would have been a very smart move. After adding VT, BC, and Miami could you imagine if they had brought in Texas and Oklahoma plus UCF, and Memphis? That would be a very strong league.

I agree with you on the ACC. I am pulling for the league to disband and a new league to happen with a few from the ACC, AAC, and Sun Belt that could form a very good football team minus the current ACC powers of UNC, Clemson, FSU, etc.

Totally agree...Miami and VT were good adds. I think Louisville was too. Those 3, plus OU and Texas, would have been amazing, and the TV money would have been there. AND if they had done that, maybe ND would have joined...because ACC wouldn't have had to offer ND the laughable deal that let's ND house all of their other sports except football. And no other league would have given ND that deal. So ND joins somewhere or has no where for their other sports.

It's too bad this current commissioner wasn't the guy back then. He seems pretty good. He leveraged the Pac 12 collapse and SMU's desire for P5 to add them, which prevents the ACC TV contracts from being voided because of the league dropping under the required member numbers, even if FSU finds their way out...AND he got those schools to take partial or no revenue for the first X amount of years. Prob not enough in the end for the league to survive but he's done a good job playing the only hand he has with the deck stacked significantly against him.

[AppStFan1]

Hindsight is 20/20...a lot of factors led to this point. 1. Swofford added the wrong teams...Pitt, BC, Syr...he went for markets back when that was the prevailing wisdom that regardless of the actual product you want the biggest market. That hasn't translated. Also, there was real danger of ACC teams leaving for the Big 12 (Maryland DID leave for Big 10), so there was added pressure to add teams for stability. So at the time, adding more teams and signing a long term deal seemed smart and safe. 2. The teams haven't performed...Miami and VT, the 2 football adds, have been awful. Football never developed and the additions didn't improve the other teams and level of play. ACC has had 1 good team (Clem or FSU) and the rest average or poor. Rarely have they had multiple good teams at the same time. 3. ACC has the chance to add Texas and Oklahoma some years ago, but declined to do so, when the league rejected the unequal revenue distribution caused by the Longhorn network....now, ironically, they're proposing an unequal revenue share based on performance. Had any or all of those things happened differently, TV contracts would have been much better. 4. ESPN has a lot to do with pressuring the ACC into extending the GOR...sign or no further negotiations, no ACC network...ACC could have said no...but, another bad decision....heard an interview with John Skipper on Lebatard where he all but admitted ESPN's role in all of the conference realignment...they have their hands all over all of this.

One argument FSU is making is that the actual GOR goes only until 2027(?) I think it the year...the remainder is an option to be picked up by ESPN if they choose. So the buyout if they can successfully argue it ends in 2027 would be doable. If ESPN, who owns SEC rights, wants FSU in the SEC, I'd be surprised if they didn't find a way to get this done.

Not sure how this will turn out. I actually hope they get out...ACC isn't the ACC I grew up with...it has no identity. Football never got good and in expanding it killed its basketball identity. Put the good brands in the Big 10 and SEC, get more good games...no more Wake, Pitt, BC, etc.

Swafford essentially did what CUSA and honestly even back then some of us on here and in media and around football in general felt that getting tradition rich programs who not only draw tickets but win games as well was the way to go.

Pitt, Syracuse, and BC just did not fit the region and back then I was thinking that adding teams like UCF and Memphis would be better. The ACC chose to stay academic instead of getting the best football programs and they are now paying for it. The evidence has been around for more than 5 years now with the Sun Belt passing the AAC and CUSA.

Even though Miami and VT have not been as good they are still good adds. They are in the footprint and are name programs that people will watch. They just need to do a better job of hiring coaches.

I sort of remember the possible adding of Texas and Oklahoma and that would have been a very smart move. After adding VT, BC, and Miami could you imagine if they had brought in Texas and Oklahoma plus UCF, and Memphis? That would be a very strong league.

I agree with you on the ACC. I am pulling for the league to disband and a new league to happen with a few from the ACC, AAC, and Sun Belt that could form a very good football team minus the current ACC powers of UNC, Clemson, FSU, etc.

Totally agree...Miami and VT were good adds. I think Louisville was too. Those 3, plus OU and Texas, would have been amazing, and the TV money would have been there. AND if they had done that, maybe ND would have joined...because ACC wouldn't have had to offer ND the laughable deal that let's ND house all of their other sports except football. And no other league would have given ND that deal. So ND joins somewhere or has no where for their other sports.

It's too bad this current commissioner wasn't the guy back then. He seems pretty good. He leveraged the Pac 12 collapse and SMU's desire for P5 to add them, which prevents the ACC TV contracts from being voided because of the league dropping under the required member numbers, even if FSU finds their way out...AND he got those schools to take partial or no revenue for the first X amount of years. Prob not enough in the end for the league to survive but he's done a good job playing the only hand he has with the deck stacked significantly against him.

Exactly. Stanford and SMU don't really fit geographically but he got good academic schools, which he needed for the others to accept, and got his numbers up. He was dealt a bad hand but doing the best he can for sure. I just wonder what happens if it looks like FSU is going to make the GOR void and then we see UVA, UNC, Clemson, and Miami all stand up with FSU and say they want out. What is his next move then?