Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the ACC is going to fall apart like the PAC 12.

Yes, it will. When you have up to seven schools looking for an exit strategy and two emerging super conferences ready to add to their ranks, then it's only a matter of time.

Maybe a month ago, but more ACC schools resemble Cal and Stanford than Oregon. Unless those 7 have guarantees, the urge to leave appears to have lessened. FSU is throwing its annual tantrum, but the rest have been very quiet

I guarantee you the urge of schools like FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Virginia Tech, and NC State has not lessened. The ACC is very unstable.

Do you think the unranked teams (UVA, VT, etc) will be asked to/pushed to leave?
Are they just dead weight - ratings might be mediocre?

Hold out to see if basketball season will generate anything if football flounders?

UVA would be in the top 5 most sought after ACC programs if something did happen realignment wise.
VT might be in some trouble...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely getting smaller pieces of the ACC financial pie.

I base this only on FSU making noise for a larger share of the conference revenue...and if Cal and Stanford are added, that further diminishes each existing member's share (unless the financial pie is enlarged due to the addition of the PAC-4 members somehow).

This is not true. ESPN had to pay a lot more to the ACC when the mnew schools came in. SMU takes nothing for 9 years. Cal and Stanford only take 30% payouts for 9 years. The pot has been increased and there should be higher payouts.

ESPN is paying around $50-60M more per year. Of that, Cal and Stanford are taking about 60% of it. For the other $25M or so each school will get a small amount to cover travel expenses and the rest will go into a pool to satisfy FSU, Clemson and others who are the larger TV draws and who bring in money from playoff appearances. It's not being divided equally.

Anonymous wrote:You’re all whining and complaining about exhausting cross country trips for athletes when you haven’t even researched or read about how the ACC plans to reduce the level of travel to a highly manageable level. Read about it, then come back here and complain. At least know what you’re talking about.

This. They have a pretty good plan. But who cares about the travel. Not the students.

Anonymous wrote:It is awful for the athletes. Money from TV deals for football is driving all this realignment, but the travel for all their other teams is going to be become so pricey and difficult that it will eat into any new profits. And it may further harm the schools' ability to continue funding teams in a larger variety of sports -- which is a real strength of some of these schools now but is endangered by the shifts in fundraising from NIL deals.

The cost of travel will not go up by much at all. The time will not go up. The difference between Miami going to BC and Miami going to Cal is a few hours; cost is not really much more.

Anonymous wrote:I feel really bad for the student athletes who will have to cross the country on the regular and keep up with school work and rest. Football is one game a week. Other sports play five or six. This is going to suck for them.

No sport plays 5-6 games a week.

Anonymous wrote:Likely getting smaller pieces of the ACC financial pie.

I base this only on FSU making noise for a larger share of the conference revenue...and if Cal and Stanford are added, that further diminishes each existing member's share (unless the financial pie is enlarged due to the addition of the PAC-4 members somehow).

This is not true. ESPN had to pay a lot more to the ACC when the mnew schools came in. SMU takes nothing for 9 years. Cal and Stanford only take 30% payouts for 9 years. The pot has been increased and there should be higher payouts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the ACC is going to fall apart like the PAC 12.

Yes, it will. When you have up to seven schools looking for an exit strategy and two emerging super conferences ready to add to their ranks, then it's only a matter of time.

Except you have not been paying attention. Only 3 schools voted against expansion. Not 7. The 7 were looking for a way out and they did not find one. The super conferneces do not want anyone else right now. That could change in the future but with these additions the ACC not likely to go anywhere -- for right now.

Anonymous wrote:I know Clemsen will likely leave the ACC, is any other school expected to leave? UNC?

Any other school expected to join?

FSU would like to leave. They can't for a long time. They are stuck. All of the ACC teams sold their media rights to the ACC. It expires in 2036. You can leave but the ACC gets your money from another conference. There is no way to break it or FSU would have already left.

No one wants them at least now. SEC does not want FSU at least now. Clemson and UNC may want to leave but no one wants them either at least right now.

To me the most likely scenario is that FSU leaves at some point. No one else will. USC will block Clemson from the SEC.

You’re all whining and complaining about exhausting cross country trips for athletes when you haven’t even researched or read about how the ACC plans to reduce the level of travel to a highly manageable level. Read about it, then come back here and complain. At least know what you’re talking about.

Look at the amount of money to be made. For Big 10 and SEC there are cable channels that make money per subscriber, and more money for every state they have a presence. Getting $1 per subscriber in California instead of ten cents is a big deal. And that is for every cable subscription, not people who signed up to get SEC network. That is why SEC added Texas A&M and Missouri.
Tens of millions of dollars. Hopefully the athletic directors will put this money towards travel.

Does this mean track athletes at Tech of UVA now have to run meets in CA?

3000 miles to play a collegiate volleyball match.

It doesn't seem very logical to have schools from athletic conferences with "Atlantic" and "Pacific" in their names join forces. I guess chasing football money trumps logic.

It is awful for the athletes. Money from TV deals for football is driving all this realignment, but the travel for all their other teams is going to be become so pricey and difficult that it will eat into any new profits. And it may further harm the schools' ability to continue funding teams in a larger variety of sports -- which is a real strength of some of these schools now but is endangered by the shifts in fundraising from NIL deals.