PonyFans.com

The SEC keeps Vandy around and the B1G keeps Northwestern around. The Big XII keeps UH, Baylor and TCU around (watch their attendance plummet this year without UT and OU games). Hopefully, the ACC will keep SMU around. Wake has history with the tobacco road schools and I don't see them being booted and they've actually been better in football than some of the other schools. UVA despite being a state university draws flies unless its winning or playing one of the big draws. I went to a UVA/Pitt game a couple of years ago and the stadium was empty. So, I think dumping teams is probably not going to work. What will work is a formula for sharing revenue to recognize TV ratings success. Take the total TV ratings for each school for the prior year divided by total ACC ratings for the prior year and divvy up the income accordingly. For example if 30 Million people watched FSU in 2023 and 200 Million people watched ACC games, then they would get 15% share. On the flip side if 1 Million watched BC, they would get a 0.5% share of the TV revenue. There is some bleed over for teams that played FSU that year. They'd get an artificial bump in the percentages, but over time that would even out.

I understand that FSU wants SEC/B1G10 revenue, and the ACC is exploring new revenue distribution models. However, I haven't seen any stories suggesting the B1G10 or, even more unlikely, the SEC would invite them.

Either this is a re-negotiation tactic, or they do have an option somewhere, e.g., B1G10.

I agree. Why would you try and terminate the grant of rights without a place to land? The SEC would have no interest in them. That only leaves the B1G which has to absorb four new mouths to feed already. The Big XII would be lateral unless they started some equitable distribution of revenue (which they don't have and why UT and OU left). The only other is if 7 ACC schools formed a new conference. UNC, VT, FSU, Clemson, U, NCS, and UVA. I guess the last option would be independent which would put them at the mercy of scheduling to be nationally relevant. They would get their own private TV deal, but still don't see that as being better than current ACC deal. They might be able to get Fox, NBC, Apple and ESPN to bid for it, but as the PAC 12 found out, doesn't always bring what you hope to get.

EastStang wrote:I agree. Why would you try and terminate the grant of rights without a place to land? The SEC would have no interest in them. That only leaves the B1G which has to absorb four new mouths to feed already. The Big XII would be lateral unless they started some equitable distribution of revenue (which they don't have and why UT and OU left). The only other is if 7 ACC schools formed a new conference. UNC, VT, FSU, Clemson, U, NCS, and UVA. I guess the last option would be independent which would put them at the mercy of scheduling to be nationally relevant. They would get their own private TV deal, but still don't see that as being better than current ACC deal. They might be able to get Fox, NBC, Apple and ESPN to bid for it, but as the PAC 12 found out, doesn't always bring what you hope to get.

You need more than 7 to form that new conference. Notre Dame is a member, so you need 8. And after this summer, you need 10. But by leaving they'd leave control of the ACC in the hands of the remaining schools, so that seems highly problematic. I'm not sure if a simply majority can rewrite the GOR or the bylaws, either. Maybe a majority could rewrite the bylaws in a way that allows them to dissolve everything. They'd have to be sure they're getting a new deal worth B1G or SEC level money per school, too, and that seems very unlikely.

Florida State now suing ACC

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... drawal-fee

does anybody believe that the ACC would get a fair and honest hearing from court a located FSU's home town? I suspect any decision against the ACC will be appealed and this action will likely go on for several years. not good for the ACC, the university nor the game of football.

Sorry, boys. If FSU actually found an out in the Grant of Rights contract, this might become a Big East 2.0 scenario for the Mustangs.

redpony wrote:does anybody believe that the ACC would get a fair and honest hearing from court a located FSU's home town? I suspect any decision against the ACC will be appealed and this action will likely go on for several years. not good for the ACC, the university nor the game of football.

ACC has countersued in NC. It is far from given that this gets heard in Florida. I think the odds of that are quite low, actually.

https://twitter.com/alisonposey14/statu ... 4zY2QPDxwA

HailToPitt725 wrote:Sorry, boys. If FSU actually found an out in the Grant of Rights contract, this might become a Big East 2.0 scenario for the Mustangs.

Thanks for the heads up. Poignant insights from PITT. Rhymes with...

AAC Statement concerning the Florida State lawsuit against the Conference.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/ ... de57&ei=14

EastStang wrote:The SEC keeps Vandy around and the B1G keeps Northwestern around. The Big XII keeps UH, Baylor and TCU around (watch their attendance plummet this year without UT and OU games). Hopefully, the ACC will keep SMU around. Wake has history with the tobacco road schools and I don't see them being booted and they've actually been better in football than some of the other schools. UVA despite being a state university draws flies unless its winning or playing one of the big draws. I went to a UVA/Pitt game a couple of years ago and the stadium was empty. So, I think dumping teams is probably not going to work. What will work is a formula for sharing revenue to recognize TV ratings success. Take the total TV ratings for each school for the prior year divided by total ACC ratings for the prior year and divvy up the income accordingly. For example if 30 Million people watched FSU in 2023 and 200 Million people watched ACC games, then they would get 15% share. On the flip side if 1 Million watched BC, they would get a 0.5% share of the TV revenue. There is some bleed over for teams that played FSU that year. They'd get an artificial bump in the percentages, but over time that would even out.

UNC's first football and baseball games were against Wake. But neither that nor Wake having 7 consecutive bowl teams alters that fact that Wake draws almost no viewers to TV sets. Wake is a massive liability, worse than even BC, which at least is another state and region. Just as I would cut off my foot to prevent gangrene from going up into my leg, I would cut off both Wake and BC in an effort to save the ACC.

And it has been those 2 with a couple others who have led the fight against ACC revenue distribution being made contingent upon TV numbers of each school.

orguy wrote:

HailToPitt725 wrote:Sorry, boys. If FSU actually found an out in the Grant of Rights contract, this might become a Big East 2.0 scenario for the Mustangs.

Thanks for the heads up. Poignant insights from PITT. Rhymes with...

That’s no disrespect to SMU; I feel bad that this isn’t the first time you’re in this situation. We’re all in the same boat now.

Water Pony wrote:I understand that FSU wants SEC/B1G10 revenue, and the ACC is exploring new revenue distribution models. However, I haven't seen any stories suggesting the B1G10 or, even more unlikely, the SEC would invite them.

Either this is a re-negotiation tactic, or they do have an option somewhere, e.g., B1G10.

I wonder what the talks between FSU and th Big10 or SEC look like? ESPN and Fox for that matter. Hopefully it will come out in discovery and they will get dragged into this mess for tortious interference with a contract.

Let’s kick their arse next Fall.

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/statu ... ge-12.html

SMU fans have been tweeting things like you can talk bad about us when you actually beat us followed by the hoops and volleyball scores. They’ve given us bulletin board material in the lawsuit. I can’t decide who I want us to beat more next year, Froggies or Seminoles? Both fan bases have shown no love for us.