College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

The American Athletic Conference--a G5 conference--is also considering Cal & Stanford.

They do not want to go there. Good conference but not good enough.

[Anonymous]

Just to add to it, the MWC media deal is three years old and was signed when cable subscribers mattered a lot more than they do now. It pays about $4 million per school per year.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/mountain-west-conference-tv-rights-cbs-fox-sports/?zephr_sso_ott=sb48wQ

Lets say PP is right and they add another two schools plus Stanford and Cal. You're telling me that two schools who weren't even the most attractive schools in a conference that had to beg Apple to get any kind of a deal and two schools coming from a conference paying $4 million a year are somehow going to each be worth more than the $21 million a piece it would take for the ACC to break even on media rights and probably much more to justify the increased travel costs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

If Duke and BC are so loaded and want to be in a big conference so much they should have invested more in their football programs, particularly BC. The ACC exit fee is not the problem. It is the GOR. ESPN owns those rights. DUKE will enjoy playing basketball in the Big 12. BC does not need to be in a major conference in to win national championships in ice hockey. They are probably already spending the exit fee money they will get from FSU on ice hockey as I type this.

You are trying to be funny but ice hockey requires no investment. It is a cheap sport. ESPN does not own the GOR. The ACC does. The ACC and ESPN have a contract. Those are very different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to add to it, the MWC media deal is three years old and was signed when cable subscribers mattered a lot more than they do now. It pays about $4 million per school per year.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/mountain-west-conference-tv-rights-cbs-fox-sports/?zephr_sso_ott=sb48wQ

Lets say PP is right and they add another two schools plus Stanford and Cal. You're telling me that two schools who weren't even the most attractive schools in a conference that had to beg Apple to get any kind of a deal and two schools coming from a conference paying $4 million a year are somehow going to each be worth more than the $21 million a piece it would take for the ACC to break even on media rights and probably much more to justify the increased travel costs?

If you are right, the deal will not happen.

But I think yes --- adding the west coast to the acc is worth a lot. Is it enough? We will see. ACC will push on ND as part of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

They want to be in what was called the Power 5 once upon a time. Ivy will never ever admit anyone else even Stanford. BC ad Duke both want to play top teams and get Thursday night games. That is what they want. They also like the money they get. My point is that they do not want or need $50 million extra from a one time payout and play in some second tier conference. They would rather get no extra money and play in a top conference. Top changes all the time but right now it is SEC or Big10 or Big12. Neither Duke nor BC will take any deal where they are not in those conferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

Great point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

They want to be in what was called the Power 5 once upon a time. Ivy will never ever admit anyone else even Stanford. BC ad Duke both want to play top teams and get Thursday night games. That is what they want. They also like the money they get. My point is that they do not want or need $50 million extra from a one time payout and play in some second tier conference. They would rather get no extra money and play in a top conference. Top changes all the time but right now it is SEC or Big10 or Big12. Neither Duke nor BC will take any deal where they are not in those conferences.

The Ivy League would admit schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, U Chicago, & MIT in a heartbeat, but none of those schools are interested in stepping down to the Ivy League. My reference to BC & Duke joining the Ivy League was intended to be humorous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

They want to be in what was called the Power 5 once upon a time. Ivy will never ever admit anyone else even Stanford. BC ad Duke both want to play top teams and get Thursday night games. That is what they want. They also like the money they get. My point is that they do not want or need $50 million extra from a one time payout and play in some second tier conference. They would rather get no extra money and play in a top conference. Top changes all the time but right now it is SEC or Big10 or Big12. Neither Duke nor BC will take any deal where they are not in those conferences.

The Ivy League would admit schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, U Chicago, & MIT in a heartbeat, but none of those schools are interested in stepping down to the Ivy League. My reference to BC & Duke joining the Ivy League was intended to be humorous.

No they wouldn't. The ivy league is very clear that they care about the student part of student athlete and sending a softball team from Hanover to Palo Alto to play a Tuesday night game wouldn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

If ESPN isn't willing to pay the SEC for extra games, why would they want to pay the ACC for more games?

https://www.si.com/college/2023/06/01/sec-schedule-eight-games-greg-sankey-meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

They want to be in what was called the Power 5 once upon a time. Ivy will never ever admit anyone else even Stanford. BC ad Duke both want to play top teams and get Thursday night games. That is what they want. They also like the money they get. My point is that they do not want or need $50 million extra from a one time payout and play in some second tier conference. They would rather get no extra money and play in a top conference. Top changes all the time but right now it is SEC or Big10 or Big12. Neither Duke nor BC will take any deal where they are not in those conferences.

The Ivy League would admit schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, U Chicago, & MIT in a heartbeat, but none of those schools are interested in stepping down to the Ivy League. My reference to BC & Duke joining the Ivy League was intended to be humorous.

Ivy would not. MIT and UChicago are D3 and do not have football. They would take Duke or NW under any circumstances. Stanford is closer but no they would not take them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

If ESPN isn't willing to pay the SEC for extra games, why would they want to pay the ACC for more games?

https://www.si.com/college/2023/06/01/sec-schedule-eight-games-greg-sankey-meetings

Because of the geographic change. Advertisers pay more for new markets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

But there is enormous risk here for the ACC. If they open up that GOR, and Clemson and FSU aren’t happy with the results, there may not be an ACC.

More specifically, FSU and Clemson are obviously unhappy with their competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis, the SEC and Big Ten. My recollection is that the only opportunity to open the GOR early is if teams are added to the ACC. If you represent FSU or Clemson, why would you agree to add Stanford and Cal as full or partial share members if the end result is that you continue to be locked in to the unacceptable status quo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

If ESPN isn't willing to pay the SEC for extra games, why would they want to pay the ACC for more games?

https://www.si.com/college/2023/06/01/sec-schedule-eight-games-greg-sankey-meetings

Because of the geographic change. Advertisers pay more for new markets.

Advertisers pay for ratings- something that Cal and Stanford lack. The Big10 and Big12 already passed on them, I doubt the ACC ends up taking them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

They want to be in what was called the Power 5 once upon a time. Ivy will never ever admit anyone else even Stanford. BC ad Duke both want to play top teams and get Thursday night games. That is what they want. They also like the money they get. My point is that they do not want or need $50 million extra from a one time payout and play in some second tier conference. They would rather get no extra money and play in a top conference. Top changes all the time but right now it is SEC or Big10 or Big12. Neither Duke nor BC will take any deal where they are not in those conferences.

The Ivy League would admit schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, U Chicago, & MIT in a heartbeat, but none of those schools are interested in stepping down to the Ivy League. My reference to BC & Duke joining the Ivy League was intended to be humorous.

Ivy would not. MIT and UChicago are D3 and do not have football. They would take Duke or NW under any circumstances. Stanford is closer but no they would not take them.

Classic Freudian slip.