• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

PhDeac said:
What is 30% of ACC future payout compared to the previous Pac-12 deal? I'm guessing it's bigger than the MWC payout.
Click to expand...

30% of $40-$50 million is $12-$15 million. They were at $30+ million in the PAC. Would have been $5-$6 million in the MWC (presumably the MWC payout would grow with those two schools)

But if they are in the MWC for 3-5 years and then the B1G even at a 30% - 50% share, that's a better 10-year earnings horizon.
 
I honestly don't get why FSU, Clemson and UNC would be against this considering it gives them a pot of incentive money until they are able to leave.

I mean I get FSU because they proven to be miserable fucks for the sake of it....
 
ironwill24 said:
I honestly don't get why FSU, Clemson and UNC would be against this considering it gives them a pot of incentive money until they are able to leave.

I mean I get FSU because they proven to be miserable fucks for the sake of it....
Click to expand...
Because adding more schools makes it harder for them to get the votes to dissolve the conference.
 
There's nothing the ACC can do short of co-opting SEC/Big 10 schools (which obviously will never happen) that will satisfy FSU and Clemson, and to a lesser degree UNC. Their rationale for voting against expansion was never about who it was short of SEC/Big10 but based around their delusion that they were going to pile up the "Magnificent Seven" into a limo and ride out of the ACC by voting to dissolve. Delusional shit for sure but this is what they thought could play out as they otherwise try to raise funds to pay the $500 mil or whatever they'd need to offset the loss of media rights for leaving the ACC before 2036
 
I'm still pumped about this. Despite the numbers posted by RR above, public perception of late seemed to be that the Big XII was a better conference, or at least in a better spot, than the ACC. The Big XII isn't a good conference. The Big XII sucks. The only reason they seemed superior was because they assembled a bunch of C+/B- schools that neither the Big Ten nor SEC would ever want, and all its members seem to have enough self-awareness to realize that fact, whereas the ACC has a couple of higher-tier schools that are publicly bellyaching. This is a power play that adds stability, neuters the malcontents, and serves as a backstop if they ever do leave.

Do I hate that this is what the collegiate sports landscape has become? Yes. Do I wish we could go back to a 9-team ACC? In a heartbeat. But that's not the reality we live in, and that means this is a great move and a great day. Go Deacs.
 
thatguy2016 said:
30% of $40-$50 million is $12-$15 million. They were at $30+ million in the PAC. Would have been $5-$6 million in the MWC (presumably the MWC payout would grow with those two schools)

But if they are in the MWC for 3-5 years and then the B1G even at a 30% - 50% share, that's a better 10-year earnings horizon.
Click to expand...
Is it 30% of Tier 1 Media money or 30% of the total?

I read somewhere it’s the former, which is around $30M per school - putting their payout at $9M. ($21M*2 + $30M*1 = $72M extra for everyone else to divide up, near the $74M I’ve seen quoted).

Then they get full shares of the rest (Bowl game payouts, NCAA tournament, etc), which is another $10M, which goes towards travel costs, etc.

So $19M each for Stanford and Cal, which os below the old PAC-12, but well above what they’d be getting in the MWC - with more aligned schools in the ACC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top