PonyFans.com

Ah yes, the latest twist on the never-ending emotional rollercoaster. Someone please wake me up when there is a press conference.

I have no clue if the ACC contract had mandates for ESPN to pay a full share of media money for any added member, but I question if that is reality. In addition the one "news report" I saw that stated that talked about the ACC paying out $39 million per team recently. The ACC did pay out $39 million recently, but that is not all "TV money". I would about guarantee even if there is a clause that ESPN is not mandated to match a full conference distribution, but rather TV money. That TV money for the ACC would be about $25 million at this time perhaps even a bit lower.

So I question the "reporting" of someone that does not understand that a pro rata clause is not for a full share of conference money instead of a share of TV money. In addition I think one has to ask the question if the ACC was sitting on this clause in their contract why did they not attempt to do something over the last few years or even the last 5 or 6 months instead of waiting until only 4 PAC programs are left to choose from and two of them have major issues. And the other two, well one of them has major athletics issues even if they have academics locked down. The other one is not exactly a giant in the revenue sports and they are both about as far away from the ACC as any program can get.

I think the simple answer to that is the ACC did not do anything because no team with decent options was going to come to the ACC for a partial share of only TV money while the other members of the conference take some of that TV money for themselves. Plus when you are only talking about $25 million in TV money that will grow about $1 million per year during the contract and a conference with 14.5 members you are not exactly talking about huge new money for existing members unless they give new members just scraps.

I can't see Stanford and Cal going for a partial share of $25 million and even less so without Oregon State and WSU to at least have a couple of teams close. Plus if Stanford and Cal were actually willing to take that partial share of TV money then absolutely Oregon State and WSU would take it. If the ACC is looking at doing this to make some money why would they not take all 4 teams at a partial share and have $100 million or so to split up vs. taking 2 and having $50 million to split. So then the answer is "Stanford and Cal will not have to take a partial share". Well if Stanford and Cal are not taking a partial share then what is it worth to the current ACC members to add them. Especially just two of them and all that travel distance.

This just seems way after the fact to all the sudden have the ACC decide to exercise some pro rata clause and try and get a few extra dollars per existing members while tossing out some pretty low dollar amounts to new members.

I would not be surprised if SMU were to agree to forego most of a pro rata share of revenues, just to move "up" from the AAC. SMU's share could go to the PAC 4 and the ACC would then seek to add 3 more schools to form a ACC-West division. Maybe Tulane, Rice and another school that fits the conference profile, all of whom would have to take less than their pro rata share, as well.

If the move to ACC were revenue neutral, it makes sense for SMU and our AAC cohorts to do it.

The ACC could also split into the private/semi-private division and public division:
SMU, Wake, Duke, BC, Syracuse, U, Stanford, Cal. That puts the travel costs on the smaller schools and reduces costs of the bigger schools. CL, GT, VT, UNC, NCS, Pitt, LV, FSU, UVA. UVA and Cal are interchangeable, both are suitably snobby, but UVA does have a hoops National Title and is in the east.

EastStang wrote:The ACC could also split into the private/semi-private division and public division:
SMU, Wake, Duke, BC, Syracuse, U, Stanford, Cal. That puts the travel costs on the smaller schools and reduces costs of the bigger schools. CL, GT, VT, UNC, NCS, Pitt, LV, FSU, UVA. UVA and Cal are interchangeable, both are suitably snobby, but UVA does have a hoops National Title and is in the east.

No. No. No.

The ACC has ability to invite teams on pro-rata basis

However, I expect any new adds are added with the deal they'll take less for 5 to 13 years.

TexanMark wrote:The ACC has ability to invite teams on pro-rata basis

However, I expect any new adds are added with the deal they'll take less for 5 to 13 years.

So if SMU takes a minimal share there will be money left over to divide among Florida State and Clemson based on their TV ratings.

Yea someone in our circle seems to have got us into the ACC discussion pretty quick. Bravo

Remember each division winner goes to the conference championship game. Would you rather have to play Clemson, NCS, UNC, VT and Florida State to get to the championship or the teams I put in the private division.

We're talking football $$$, but don't forget that an ACC conference schedule would pack Moody.

The latest suggest that we would forgo distribution for five years, maybe more.

Stanford and Cal would come in with a 60% to 70% distribution.

https://www.on3.com/news/acc-expansion- ... edia-deal/

That's super simp level but I understand the "whatever it takes" mentality.

EastStang wrote:Remember each division winner goes to the conference championship game. Would you rather have to play Clemson, NCS, UNC, VT and Florida State to get to the championship or the teams I put in the private division.

Meh. The ACC is now divisionless and should stay that way.

For comparison, your attitude would have had SMU in a SWC division with Rice, TCU, and Baylor.

I think if Stanford and Cal are invited then we will be as well. A bridge to California and huge recruiting base. Playing in Dallas will help FSU and Clemson football

Peruna Power wrote:The latest suggest that we would forgo distribution for five years, maybe more.

Stanford and Cal would come in with a 60% to 70% distribution.

https://www.on3.com/news/acc-expansion- ... edia-deal/

I wouldn't care for the optics of that. If we can garner a share that equates to what we're getting from AAC ($7 million?), that would be fair and far less than the charter ACC members. I say this acknowledging that we have well-heeled alums to Pony Up the difference.