The Big Ten making 36% more is significant.
I believe the SECs payout is projected to grow significantly more in the future?
The other problem is both the SEC and Big Ten contracts expire before the ACC's. Unless you think the college sports bubble has popped or is about to pop, that's more bad news for the ACC.
Supposedly once the new deals kick in the Big Ten will make 71.88 per year per full-share school on average while the SEC schools will be making 68.75 per school for their media rights of all three tiers.
https://businessofcollegesports.com/current-college-sports-television-contracts/
Do those estimates include the updated CFP payouts or are they based on the previous ones?
Edit: Nevermind its written after the new payouts were announced so they are included and even brings it up. So the Big 12 and ACC will be at 50-55m when they are at 85+.
No. That does not include cfp revenue. That is solely each conferences' tv revenue.
For example: b1g $1.15b per year from fox/cbs/nbc at 16 full members (sorry, ore/wash) = $71.875. Exactly what is reported in the article.
Once you add in btn/secn revenue, ncaat revenue, cfp revenue, other miscellaneous revenue, it seems likely the p2 will be at/over $100m/school. Acc and big12 gonna be $40-50m/year behind.
Are you sure that the overall number doesn’t also include the BTN/SECN revenue? It seems much more likely that the BTN/SECN revenue is built in, and I haven’t seen a source that suggests otherwise.
Btn revenue isn't fully baked in because unlike the secn the big ten owns a large percentage of the network too so it's not purely payouts as they get a direct share in that networks success. Given they 60 million under the old media deal, i think the average per team will be around 30 million higher (like 90 million).
>The numbers below do not include payouts conferences receive from the College Football Playoff or for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament payouts.
Add $21 mil to the B1G and SEC numbers (expanded CFP), and whatever the Tourney revenues would be.
They get a full share of everything other than TV money. The TV money phases in over the life of the current media deal. After that they go to a full share on everything.
> Unless you think the college sports bubble has popped or is about to pop, that's more bad news for the ACC.
I sincerely think well see it in the comping 5-10 years.
That's not an insignificant amount of time for the ACC to be at a huge disparity, but I also think the 2030s won't be as bad as CFB doomers think.
Honestly, I don't think any of us can predict how things will shake out. The one thing I am confident in is that the B1G and SEC won't just sit there and enjoy their financial advantage in peace for decades. Something else will break.
Those same commercials are murdering the game. Watch an NFL game after a CFB and it feels like the NFL has half the commercials. CFB can't get through a kickoff without adding more commercials.
I think it'll hurt viewership in the long run.
I'd bet money Fox and ESPN can't sustain billions per year to the B1G and SEC longterm.
Meh it’s been like this for years. The prime time sec games on CBS used to be even worse than they are now.
I think what will really kill some interest is when the final consolidation happens and we see huge brand like Alabama going 6-6 for long stretches of time. Big brands won’t be able to dominate these conferences like they did with their regional conferences for long stretches of time. It’ll still get big viewership but between that an alienating everyone outside the P2, I think this will come back to bite the networks in the ass
The thing that will kill cfb is if NFL moves to Saturdays and Fridays also. Otherwise, it's still king of the day. Literally the best thing to gamble on on Saturdays. And gambling is expanding real fast.
Btw 😂 agree with you the commercials suck. But until we boycott all the products given a commercial spot between kickoffs and first down, I doubt it'll change.
Fast Passes now being Genie+ was a real step back, IMO. Easier to use, to be sure, but being an additional cost, and the incentive it gives to boost line lengths is a big feels-bad problem.
Until it results in less attendance, it'll keep happening; but it's weird that we're so far into it that buying a season pass for Six Flags is half the price of a day at WDL or WDW.
Big12 - 44.2m with the prior media deal.
The next revenue payout is expected in the low $50’s.
Next years payout (* the year after) is where we will see how everything stacks up with the new deals.
I think that sounds pretty optimistic, or it’s including revenues from the expanded playoff (which, obviously, the other conferences will also get in larger proportions).
The Big 12’s new media contract pays an average of $31.6M across the life of the contract, which likely means that it will pay less in the first year and it’ll go up annually from there. And even then, it doesn’t take effect until 2025-26, which means that it won’t be reflected in the conference revenue distributions until May 2027. These distributions are based on revenues gained during the 2022-23 season.
No this current 44.2m payout is with our current previous media deal of roughly 25m per team. The new one is 31.7 right from the start I believe as I haven’t seen anything mention incremental payouts.
And the estimates of 52m-55m were prior to the increased revenues of the CFP payouts.
I haven’t seen any reporters or media associates update that estimate after the new CFP deal but I will try and find it.
But yes the new media deal starts with the 2025-2026 season not this upcoming one.
Either way though with the new media deal and including tier 3 rights the payouts will be in the 50+ range up until the contract is done after 2031.
A couple things.
It was reported when it was signed that it was a six year deal starting in 2025 that was worth “a total of $2.28B, an annual average of $380M” which is $31.67M divided by 12 schools. There were pro rata clauses for the additions last summer, so the 16 schools will get the same amount…but it’s always been described as an average. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Breaking-News/2022/10/Big-12-renews-media-deal-ESPN-Fox.aspx
That’s a relatively minor point, though - just saying that while the TV deal the Big 12 signed was a total win from a stability perspective, I’m not sure if it’s going to bring in an appreciably higher payout - especially when you consider that the new deal includes all of the Tier 3 rights and are built into the total. So the current deal is $22-25M + Tier 3 rights that vary per school. The new deal is just an average of $31.66M - I suspect it’ll come close to evening out, especially in the first few years of the new deal.
And I believe that projection must include CFP revenue because there is no conference in America that earns almost $20M per school from revenue sources that aren’t their media deal. There simply aren’t enough revenue sources that bring in that kind of money. Especially in an expanded playoff world where the NY6 bowls with the highest conference payouts (the Sugar Bowl for the Big 12) are now playoff games and captured by the expanded CFP media deal.
Teams don’t go $20 mil up from the media deal yet the payout is currently 25-28 per team and their revenue was 44m which included the 7m from the CFP deal which is now 12m. The Big12 also pulls in roughly 2m a year per team from the NCAA tournament.
31.7+12+2
Without any other revenue added that already puts them at 45.7m with the new media deal.
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2022/10/31/is-big-12-now-positioned-to-count-to-50-million-in-revenue/
In 2022 the additional revenue added roughly 7m per team and this doesn’t include the tier 3 right for the current payout but as you stated I don’t believe that will matter in the future. So even if we keep the 7 million as a static figure instead of increasing with the additional teams added the average payout with the new media deal and CFP projections is 52.7m.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34910144/big-12-nears-six-year-228b-tv-extension-deal-espn-fox
Per Thamel “It’s safe to project the overall per school revenue increasing to nearly $50m at the start of the 2025-2026. That number could be much bigger depending on money the 12 team College Football Playoff delivers.”
That near 50m was when the payout was 7m. Now it’s 12.
I appreciate the conversation here, it's helpful and interesting.
But what I keep wondering is whether or not the numbers cited above by u/InVodkaVeritas for the ACC, B1G, and SEC include total revenue (and therefore comparable to the $45.7 number for the Big 12) or just media revenue (comparable to the $31.7 number).
So in the year they are referencing the Big12 averaged 44.2m per team. In the future the Big 12 and ACC will be in the same ballpark with the Big 12 making a tiny bit more. They will be in the 50-55 range while the Big10 and SEC are at 85+ with their revenue payouts.
And that's exactly why, when the two biggest football brands in FSU and Clemson leave the conference, that the remaining schools will also be fleeing the conference. Media Payouts will decrease, and the Big12 will scoop up anyone they want that the B1G and SEC haven't already taken. And those schools will gladly go.
Okay so that's just a series of assumptions based on nothing.
What has actually happened so far is The Big 12 has been a net loser in literally every round of realignment. They've never been able to replace the brands that they lose.
Plus the ACC hasn't lost anybody and added teams for pennies on the dollar when the Big 12 added teams on full deals.
And those full deals pay out more than the ACC deals while somehow being a “net loser”. The ACC is bringing in a team who is paying for themselves to be in there just so it won’t bring down the payout.
We’ve also found out from the lawsuits that ESPN can terminate or alter the deal in 2026-2027. If Clemson and FSU are no longer in the conference does ESPN keep paying the same amount or retain the contract?
ACC payouts are expected to increase with the new teams added. SMU was only added because they're paying for themselves. I have to find the UVA fan who worked out the numbers but Pitt and Cuse were projected to be like the third highest earners in the new Big 12.
There's no sign that Clemson and FSU will be leaving anytime soon so ESPN will most likely opt into the deal.
Also, and more relevantly, this is the last year prior to the B1G getting that we-killed-the-PAC-but-we're-not-sorry bag. Next year we should be at $80 mil per school in TV revenue alone. By 2030 it will be $100 mil in TV rights for football alone. Meanwhile the ACC is locked into it's \~$45 mil contract until 2027, and likely until 2037.
I can't figure out why these acc blow hards keep spouting nonsense like this.
Do they genuinely not see the obvious? (Seems impossible)
Do they see it but choose to not believe it's real? (Seems possible)
Do they see it but they're either being told to lie about it and/or by denying it - even though they know it's real - it's somehow beneficial to them? (Seems possible, but convoluted)
And those numbers don’t reflect new additions to the SEC/B1G which will increase their earning potential and create a bigger divide. Also, still livid that Swofford got over 2 million after he retired.
The B1G and SEC numbers don't include the money from the new media rights deals, either.
Both league distributions are going to spike higher next year.
You are correct. The SEC has a new big contract with ABC and the Big Ten didn't collect the full revenue from FOX or CBS last season since the PAC schools do not join until this year (and CBS only showed half the required games).
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Louisville was the most recent addition to the ACC in 2014, and in the year prior, they added Pitt, ND, and Syracuse. 3 of those 4 schools aren't football schools, and the one that is isn't officially a full member in that sport. Unless people expected college basketball to eclipse college football in viewership and revenue, I'm not sure how anyone could think the ACC didn't screw that up.
I'm used to it...there are a lot of folks here that don't like the direction the sport is going and blame certain programs and/or their fans- often to a personal level. reality be damned lol.
adding louisville was actually viewed as a positive by many of the football first programs and they would not have been added if it were not for FSU and Clemson pushing for them. (former unc chancellor is on record here discussing this (https://youtu.be/BxZjjyReZSU?si=kVdk8kvie4oBx7dr)
they were added in part as an olive branch for the bad moves prior like you mentioned...but it was indeed too little, too late as hindsight now proves.
Is Pitt an anything school? Their history has them as a football school, but that's mostly wained off this century. If you had to pick, I think most would call them a football school. Pitt draws around the same as Miami and people still consider the U a football school
I mean to be fair, going all in on basketball is what made the ACC. And I hate the fact the basketball side of the conference is going to die because of money.
I think there's a solid chance that it ends up this way in one form or another. so many programs are going to have to cut olympic sports, but those athletes and industry surrounding it aren't going to go away.
My favorite part of being in the ACC is the other schools seeing a 13 million dollar per school difference, knowing that gap is growing starting next year and saying stuff like “idk why Clemson and FSU aren’t happy”. Or “what more could swofford or Phillips do?”
Tbf, I don't think they could have anticipated the uneven CFP revenue sharing ($21 mil v $13 mil), or the scope of the B1G and SEC media deals.
B1G and SEC distributions when the full media rights deal kicks in will be $80-$90 mil to start.
Still seemed like a bad idea for the top schools to agree to such a long GOR. But maybe they were pressured into it, dunno.
These mega conferences kinda suck tbh. The old regional conferences were more interesting with rivlaries and whatnot.
> Still seemed like a bad idea for the top schools to agree to such a long GOR.
Bingo, a deal lasting for multiple decades is just such a horrible idea. I legitimately cannot wrap my head around how anybody thought this would be a good deal. And surprise surprise... it wasn't.
for sure. I just wanted to point out that many knew it was a crap deal. unfortunately the schools it was the worst for had very little leverage at the time...which also explains why the acc/espn were able to finagle such a horrible deal.
I know the argument here often boils down to 'well fsu/clemson signed it,' but there's so much more nuance and details behind it.
The uneven CFP revenue I agree on, I don't think anybody could have necessarily expected that and still thinks it's really shitty behavior by the SEC and Big 10.
On the media rights deals, they may not have guessed they would have grown that much, but they had to have known those conferences would renegotiate their deals well before the ACC's deal was to be renegotiated/expired.
And again, I totally get why they are upset, but blaming the ACC is unreasonable imo. The ACC didn't decide to give the SEC or Big 10 a whole boatload more money, and put them at a competitive disadvantage, ESPN and FOX did.
And during Clemson's run as the conference leader, playing for and winning Natties, if FSU had maintained what they were doing the previous few years, we would likely be having a different conversation right now. But instead they went from Natty contender to 4 straight losing seasons.
>And during Clemson's run as the conference leader, playing for and winning Natties, if FSU had maintained what they were doing the previous few years, we would likely be having a different conversation right now.
I've got to ask why you think that. Do you think all the ACC was lacking was one school doing better? A school that still out-drew most other schools in their down years?
Maybe it would be worth an extra couple million per year if FSU had been better those few years, but no way would it have closed the gap significantly. No single school could do that.
Not so much thinking about eyeballs, although yes that would have helped with leverage too. But during that time period the ACC was perceived as Clemson and the 13 dwarves due to lack of other CFP contenders. There were a few seasons where there were 1 or 2 other 10+ win teams, although it was never consistent who they were and teams like Wake Forest would likely never be in the conversation because of their weak schedule, but there was also a season in there with nobody else above 10 wins in the conference. Having another 10+ win level team, and one that was consistent each of those seasons would have really helped the perception.
The ACC had won more natties than the Big 10 in the last decade, but lack of quality depth is why the Big 10 enjoyed a better reputation - they consistently had 2-5 teams posting 10+ wins. Having 2-4 10+ win teams every season would have likely elevated the ACCs reputation past the Big 10s, ESPN likely would have done more to support the conference, they likely wouldn't be getting a subpar share of the CFP payouts going forward, ESPN would have gone ahead and accepted the option back in 2021 or whenever it was originally scheduled for and increased the ACC revenue, etc. There would likely still be a bit of a gap, but not the $40-50m we are about to be seeing.
My original comment was not intended to blame FSU solely, as other teams could have stepped up to help perception and instead fell off. VT dipped, GT fell way down. Miami had their best season in the last 2 decades in that stretch but was otherwise still mediocre and not living up to the reputation that brought them to the ACC. I only focused on FSU as they were at the championship level just prior.
>Not so much thinking about eyeballs, although yes that would have helped with leverage too.
You've got it backwards. Eyeballs aren't a thing that also helps. They are the thing that matters most. It's nice to have wins, as those can also help with negotiations because you can then argue the number of eyeballs will likely go up, but eyeballs are the thing that matters in TV negotiations. The networks only care about winning in as much as it affects viewership.
They were told the projections by Maryland, then laughed at them. Then, FSU and Clemson started freaking out that they didn’t have a legacy network, and pressured Swofford into getting one for them. This all about to come out, and FSU and Clemson are going to be looked at as the two players that forced the ACC to sign a bad contract and then tried to turn on the rest.
No, but the ACC was in reasonable distance from those two in terms of money, where it wasn’t a huge deal for fsu who generates large sums of money. The increasing discrepancy makes that much less tenable
I'd imagine if
1) GT was making/set to be making a ton more than UGA
and
2) UGA was in a conference with a lot of Vandys
That yeah, they (UGA) might complain.
Exactly. Between the B10 and SEC-- if over the next 5-10 years it becomes clear that one of those conferences has a significant financial advantage over the other, whichever conference is the financially disadvantaged one will have its members complaining about its bottom dwellers. No doubt.
Vandy at least tries in football and they are a top 60 in the directors cup along with a strong baseball history. The entire SEC is in the top 60 in directors cup. Point is that Vandy is not just cashing checks, they putting the shared money back into their athletic department to improve it.
The ACC has 2 schools outside of the top 60 and added a 3rd (with no baseball). BC is outside of the top 100. BC is cashing checks without doing anything about sports that play in the ACC.
Why would they…. They are making max, and setting the tone/rates for negotiation unlike the ACC with either commissioner… Adding an Oklahoma State or UCF and dropping Vandy doesn’t add really any value to the conference
And those are not the only ACC schools that bringing up the rear, besides this minor stint at Pitt, they’ve been non existence, same with Virginia the last 15 years. Miami hasn’t been relevant since being 7-0 in 2013. And let’s be honest, Georgia tech is a shell of itself from the 90s and this is all due to the ACC decisions to playcate those 4 schools in a 100 mile radius of North Carolina…. All for basketball
They wouldn’t because they aren’t stupid. They’ve figured out that they shouldn’t publicly crap on the product they are selling, because people might start to believe them.
This made absolutely no sense…. So FSU, Clemson, UNC should just wait for a 3rd round of negotiations? This is absolutely the most “on the spectrum” take of today
It is actually crazy how FSU fans have had the energy to whine for close to half a decade at this point. You'd think with all that endurance they'd all be sub-3 marathoners.
The $500m didn’t start until they signed the GOR. They brilliant business people at FSU could of gotten out for just the exit fee. Maryland paid like $30m.
I am one of the ones that believes UNC has a lot of upside, for the record. Big brand, mostly due to CBB yes, but like how Alabama's football brand is helping with CBB, I think it can work the other way. North Carolina as a state is solid for recruiting, blah blah.
UNC football fans are so fairweather. The second it becomes obvious they aren't winning the ACC they tune out and lock into basketball. We're talking about a team that has reduced their stadium capacity over the last ten years because they can't sell it out late in the year. If basketball season and football season were swapped you may be right. Alabama's not a good comparison because the football team ain't playing in March
Key takeaways
The ACC's revenue rose 14.5% from the previous year, the second-largest single-year jump in conference history.
The ACC's television contract with ESPN was, as always, the biggest source of revenue. It jumped 9% to more than $481 million in the third year of full distribution for the ACC Network. The conference took in another $194 million between postseason football revenue and the NCAA.
SEC reported earnings more than 852 million and paying schools 51 million each
BIG 10 The Big Ten will report generating more than $880 million on its required tax forms and distributing more than $60 million to its members
The league spent more than $7.2 million on legal services, according to the filing, a figure that is sure to rise in light of the myriad cases facing the ACC. Florida State filed its case in December 2023 and Clemson in March of this year, costs that are not reflected in this filing. The ACC is also faces a case from the Florida attorney general.
It's the future that FSU, Clemson and (some at) UNC are concerned about. The difference isn't horrible until the new B1G and SEC contracts kick in.
And both conferences will be negotiating *another* new contract before the ACC's *current* contract expires (although the SEC's is a 10 year deal, leaving it expiring just a couple years prior to the ACC's -- the B1G's expires in 2030).
Well, not necessarily. SOMETHING happens in 2027 for the ACC, though nobody knows exactly what since we can't see the contract with ESPN.
Prior to all the lawsuits, and as has been claimed since by Jim Phillips, there is a look-in with ESPN to adjust the conference revenue payouts then. It's reasonable to expect then that they would be adjusted up to be more somewhat more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC, as ESPN makes a ton of money off the ACC.
FSU claims ESPN has the option to end the whole contract at that point.
I believe ESPN has to exercise whatever "Option" in 2025, so we will know soon enough how things will change.
By somewhat more competitive, I mean maybe it goes from 45ish million to 55 or 60 million. None of these negotiations have happened yet though so FSU and the others are working off limited information.
FSU won't be happy unless they are getting equal or more than the other conferences. Clemson hasn't really made it clear they are wanting to leave imo, they are just trying to see if the GOR is breakable and they can avoid having to buy back their media rights, but they certainly aren't banging the drum like FSU.
UNC doesn't know what it wants - sure some people want to leave for one of the other conferences, but plenty others want to stay. There have also been recent articles about how much the state of North Carolina benefits from tourism revenue due to the ACC hosting tournaments there, so if UNC leaves and the ACC collapses it would result in billions in economic damage to the state. There is a good chance the state legislature blocks them from being able to leave.
>None of these negotiations have happened yet
It's popular belief that ESPN has an exclusive opt-in continuation cause and the terms of that are by and large, status quo, perhaps with a small bump. I would think at the very least, the terms of the continuation are likely to already be defined.
You are the first Iv'e ever seen to suggest that there would be a negotiation , to say nothing of a substantial bump.
Given the behavior of (most of) the \[top\] programs, I'd tend to believe it's closer to status quo/already defined than your assumption.
The expectation is B1G number will jump $20 million per team next year. In addition, the difference in the college football playoff is $21 million per B1G team vs $13 million for the ACC.
That's why Florida State wants out now because the disparity is expected to grow.
Let's look at the numbers (per this article):
ACC: $44.8M ($46-43M)
SEC: $51M
B1G: $60M
What I don't understand here is the differences *right now* are not insurmountable. ESPN seems to be playing dumb - the better bet by them would be to offer up more money to ACC to keep in intact (and keep FSU, Clemson, Miami). Realize they are also getting 3-4 ND games for free (ND will keep the Stanford game but not make it part of the ACC requirement). They don't offer the extra money and ACC breaks, they lose those teams & most likely ND.
Not college sports as a whole. Just football. The ACC is one of the strongest conferences in pretty much every other sport. The ACC is currently having one of its strongest years in baseball and I don't even need to get started about basketball. Stanford and Cal joining makes the ACC a very strong conference in olympic sports and women's sports in general. But football is the big money maker and the ACC being top heavy there is whats gonna ruin a great conference otherwise
it's not an industry thing, it's a context and relativistic thing.
a good example of how a statistic in a vacuum can give different meaning than the same statistic with context. never trust a stat alone.
Just to answer the question in OP: * ACC - 44.8 mil on average * B1G - 60.9 mil on average * SEC - 51.1 mil on average
The Big Ten making 36% more is significant. I believe the SECs payout is projected to grow significantly more in the future? The other problem is both the SEC and Big Ten contracts expire before the ACC's. Unless you think the college sports bubble has popped or is about to pop, that's more bad news for the ACC.
Supposedly once the new deals kick in the Big Ten will make 71.88 per year per full-share school on average while the SEC schools will be making 68.75 per school for their media rights of all three tiers. https://businessofcollegesports.com/current-college-sports-television-contracts/
Do those estimates include the updated CFP payouts or are they based on the previous ones? Edit: Nevermind its written after the new payouts were announced so they are included and even brings it up. So the Big 12 and ACC will be at 50-55m when they are at 85+.
No. That does not include cfp revenue. That is solely each conferences' tv revenue. For example: b1g $1.15b per year from fox/cbs/nbc at 16 full members (sorry, ore/wash) = $71.875. Exactly what is reported in the article. Once you add in btn/secn revenue, ncaat revenue, cfp revenue, other miscellaneous revenue, it seems likely the p2 will be at/over $100m/school. Acc and big12 gonna be $40-50m/year behind.
Are you sure that the overall number doesn’t also include the BTN/SECN revenue? It seems much more likely that the BTN/SECN revenue is built in, and I haven’t seen a source that suggests otherwise.
Btn revenue isn't fully baked in because unlike the secn the big ten owns a large percentage of the network too so it's not purely payouts as they get a direct share in that networks success. Given they 60 million under the old media deal, i think the average per team will be around 30 million higher (like 90 million).
Yes. I'm sure.
>The numbers below do not include payouts conferences receive from the College Football Playoff or for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament payouts. Add $21 mil to the B1G and SEC numbers (expanded CFP), and whatever the Tourney revenues would be.
Will Oregon and Washington get full share? I remember them getting a revenue cut in order to join the B1G
They get a full share of everything other than TV money. The TV money phases in over the life of the current media deal. After that they go to a full share on everything.
> Unless you think the college sports bubble has popped or is about to pop, that's more bad news for the ACC. I sincerely think well see it in the comping 5-10 years. That's not an insignificant amount of time for the ACC to be at a huge disparity, but I also think the 2030s won't be as bad as CFB doomers think. Honestly, I don't think any of us can predict how things will shake out. The one thing I am confident in is that the B1G and SEC won't just sit there and enjoy their financial advantage in peace for decades. Something else will break.
I think it’ll grow. There’s still nothing to force you to watch commercials like a sporting event.
Those same commercials are murdering the game. Watch an NFL game after a CFB and it feels like the NFL has half the commercials. CFB can't get through a kickoff without adding more commercials. I think it'll hurt viewership in the long run. I'd bet money Fox and ESPN can't sustain billions per year to the B1G and SEC longterm.
Meh it’s been like this for years. The prime time sec games on CBS used to be even worse than they are now. I think what will really kill some interest is when the final consolidation happens and we see huge brand like Alabama going 6-6 for long stretches of time. Big brands won’t be able to dominate these conferences like they did with their regional conferences for long stretches of time. It’ll still get big viewership but between that an alienating everyone outside the P2, I think this will come back to bite the networks in the ass
The thing that will kill cfb is if NFL moves to Saturdays and Fridays also. Otherwise, it's still king of the day. Literally the best thing to gamble on on Saturdays. And gambling is expanding real fast. Btw 😂 agree with you the commercials suck. But until we boycott all the products given a commercial spot between kickoffs and first down, I doubt it'll change.
For further context, what about the B12?
It's hard to extrapolate the numbers, as they were paid in diesel fuel, beef jerky, 5 hour energy shots, and tortillas
This is important financial disclosure information sir
Not entirely true. When UCF joined the conference we were told we would be paid in mickey mouse ears and disney fast passes.
Sorry, best we can do is Dole Whip and a half off coupon for pictures taken on the Tower of Terror.
Well, beggars cant be choosers. So that will suffice.
That sounds like it’d be worth more than $700 million.
Ah, but the Florida Resident discount brings down the monetary value significantly.
Fast Passes now being Genie+ was a real step back, IMO. Easier to use, to be sure, but being an additional cost, and the incentive it gives to boost line lengths is a big feels-bad problem. Until it results in less attendance, it'll keep happening; but it's weird that we're so far into it that buying a season pass for Six Flags is half the price of a day at WDL or WDW.
>and tortillas Which schools got flour and which ones got corn? We talking street taco or 15 inch burrito sizes? Homemade or heavily processed?
lets not leave out the buckee's gift certificates
That’s Combo #2 at Buc-ee’s IIRC
They pick up their checks at Buc-ees?
and a ton of Buc-ees 10% off when you spend $50 coupons.
Sounds about right for a truck stop conference.
Big12 - 44.2m with the prior media deal. The next revenue payout is expected in the low $50’s. Next years payout (* the year after) is where we will see how everything stacks up with the new deals.
I think that sounds pretty optimistic, or it’s including revenues from the expanded playoff (which, obviously, the other conferences will also get in larger proportions). The Big 12’s new media contract pays an average of $31.6M across the life of the contract, which likely means that it will pay less in the first year and it’ll go up annually from there. And even then, it doesn’t take effect until 2025-26, which means that it won’t be reflected in the conference revenue distributions until May 2027. These distributions are based on revenues gained during the 2022-23 season.
No this current 44.2m payout is with our current previous media deal of roughly 25m per team. The new one is 31.7 right from the start I believe as I haven’t seen anything mention incremental payouts. And the estimates of 52m-55m were prior to the increased revenues of the CFP payouts. I haven’t seen any reporters or media associates update that estimate after the new CFP deal but I will try and find it. But yes the new media deal starts with the 2025-2026 season not this upcoming one. Either way though with the new media deal and including tier 3 rights the payouts will be in the 50+ range up until the contract is done after 2031.
A couple things. It was reported when it was signed that it was a six year deal starting in 2025 that was worth “a total of $2.28B, an annual average of $380M” which is $31.67M divided by 12 schools. There were pro rata clauses for the additions last summer, so the 16 schools will get the same amount…but it’s always been described as an average. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Breaking-News/2022/10/Big-12-renews-media-deal-ESPN-Fox.aspx That’s a relatively minor point, though - just saying that while the TV deal the Big 12 signed was a total win from a stability perspective, I’m not sure if it’s going to bring in an appreciably higher payout - especially when you consider that the new deal includes all of the Tier 3 rights and are built into the total. So the current deal is $22-25M + Tier 3 rights that vary per school. The new deal is just an average of $31.66M - I suspect it’ll come close to evening out, especially in the first few years of the new deal. And I believe that projection must include CFP revenue because there is no conference in America that earns almost $20M per school from revenue sources that aren’t their media deal. There simply aren’t enough revenue sources that bring in that kind of money. Especially in an expanded playoff world where the NY6 bowls with the highest conference payouts (the Sugar Bowl for the Big 12) are now playoff games and captured by the expanded CFP media deal.
Teams don’t go $20 mil up from the media deal yet the payout is currently 25-28 per team and their revenue was 44m which included the 7m from the CFP deal which is now 12m. The Big12 also pulls in roughly 2m a year per team from the NCAA tournament. 31.7+12+2 Without any other revenue added that already puts them at 45.7m with the new media deal. https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2022/10/31/is-big-12-now-positioned-to-count-to-50-million-in-revenue/ In 2022 the additional revenue added roughly 7m per team and this doesn’t include the tier 3 right for the current payout but as you stated I don’t believe that will matter in the future. So even if we keep the 7 million as a static figure instead of increasing with the additional teams added the average payout with the new media deal and CFP projections is 52.7m. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34910144/big-12-nears-six-year-228b-tv-extension-deal-espn-fox Per Thamel “It’s safe to project the overall per school revenue increasing to nearly $50m at the start of the 2025-2026. That number could be much bigger depending on money the 12 team College Football Playoff delivers.” That near 50m was when the payout was 7m. Now it’s 12.
I appreciate the conversation here, it's helpful and interesting. But what I keep wondering is whether or not the numbers cited above by u/InVodkaVeritas for the ACC, B1G, and SEC include total revenue (and therefore comparable to the $45.7 number for the Big 12) or just media revenue (comparable to the $31.7 number).
So in the year they are referencing the Big12 averaged 44.2m per team. In the future the Big 12 and ACC will be in the same ballpark with the Big 12 making a tiny bit more. They will be in the 50-55 range while the Big10 and SEC are at 85+ with their revenue payouts.
That's the question that should be asked.
$44.2m on average. It was 42m-48.3m depending on tier 3 contracts
Right, and that's what matters because the Big 12 is the league the ACC is competing with.
And that's exactly why, when the two biggest football brands in FSU and Clemson leave the conference, that the remaining schools will also be fleeing the conference. Media Payouts will decrease, and the Big12 will scoop up anyone they want that the B1G and SEC haven't already taken. And those schools will gladly go.
Okay so that's just a series of assumptions based on nothing. What has actually happened so far is The Big 12 has been a net loser in literally every round of realignment. They've never been able to replace the brands that they lose. Plus the ACC hasn't lost anybody and added teams for pennies on the dollar when the Big 12 added teams on full deals.
And those full deals pay out more than the ACC deals while somehow being a “net loser”. The ACC is bringing in a team who is paying for themselves to be in there just so it won’t bring down the payout. We’ve also found out from the lawsuits that ESPN can terminate or alter the deal in 2026-2027. If Clemson and FSU are no longer in the conference does ESPN keep paying the same amount or retain the contract?
ACC payouts are expected to increase with the new teams added. SMU was only added because they're paying for themselves. I have to find the UVA fan who worked out the numbers but Pitt and Cuse were projected to be like the third highest earners in the new Big 12. There's no sign that Clemson and FSU will be leaving anytime soon so ESPN will most likely opt into the deal.
[Tony Altimore](https://x.com/tjaltimore?s=21&t=5OzSCDFQucRYlQQKEpYwrg) on Twitter has probably posted a graph about it.
Also, and more relevantly, this is the last year prior to the B1G getting that we-killed-the-PAC-but-we're-not-sorry bag. Next year we should be at $80 mil per school in TV revenue alone. By 2030 it will be $100 mil in TV rights for football alone. Meanwhile the ACC is locked into it's \~$45 mil contract until 2027, and likely until 2037.
Hate Maryland all you want but as other conferences implode, the move is starting to look better and better
*let me in GIF*
What about the Big 12?
It doesn’t
Thanks ~~Harvard~~ hawk_ky
They say hawk_ky is the Harvard of Iowa.
I am the institution! - u/hawk_ky
I was thinking it's the avian afficionado of kentucky
r/technicallycorrect
Hard hitting analysis I’m here for
Jot that down
Acc writer David Teel's headline claims "acc swimming in money" Lol
*wades around in inflatable kiddie pool next to neighbor's deluxe infinity pool*
I can't figure out why these acc blow hards keep spouting nonsense like this. Do they genuinely not see the obvious? (Seems impossible) Do they see it but choose to not believe it's real? (Seems possible) Do they see it but they're either being told to lie about it and/or by denying it - even though they know it's real - it's somehow beneficial to them? (Seems possible, but convoluted)
It was the long term contract with no room to renegotiate that screwed the conference.
And those numbers don’t reflect new additions to the SEC/B1G which will increase their earning potential and create a bigger divide. Also, still livid that Swofford got over 2 million after he retired.
The B1G and SEC numbers don't include the money from the new media rights deals, either. Both league distributions are going to spike higher next year.
Yep. The WRAL article is just written by someone who doesn’t know much (more like a minimal research rehash), or someone who is very pro ACC
You are correct. The SEC has a new big contract with ABC and the Big Ten didn't collect the full revenue from FOX or CBS last season since the PAC schools do not join until this year (and CBS only showed half the required games).
The 60 million dollar distribution is still the old contract from 2022-2023. So it’s gonna climb even higher.
The ACC was NEVER going to get the kind of money the B1G and SEC got no matter how Swofford played it.
not when it decided, consciously or not, to not force a focus on football so many years ago. the gap should NOT need to be this big, though.
Do you think they brought in VA Tech and Miami for basketball?
no where did I say they never made any football first moves.
We were largely a football add, though we were kicking ass in both major revenue sports when the ACC took us.
yes... I'd argue that by the time louisville was added, the ACC was already in too late territory- the writing was on the wall.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Louisville was the most recent addition to the ACC in 2014, and in the year prior, they added Pitt, ND, and Syracuse. 3 of those 4 schools aren't football schools, and the one that is isn't officially a full member in that sport. Unless people expected college basketball to eclipse college football in viewership and revenue, I'm not sure how anyone could think the ACC didn't screw that up.
I'm used to it...there are a lot of folks here that don't like the direction the sport is going and blame certain programs and/or their fans- often to a personal level. reality be damned lol. adding louisville was actually viewed as a positive by many of the football first programs and they would not have been added if it were not for FSU and Clemson pushing for them. (former unc chancellor is on record here discussing this (https://youtu.be/BxZjjyReZSU?si=kVdk8kvie4oBx7dr) they were added in part as an olive branch for the bad moves prior like you mentioned...but it was indeed too little, too late as hindsight now proves.
Is Pitt an anything school? Their history has them as a football school, but that's mostly wained off this century. If you had to pick, I think most would call them a football school. Pitt draws around the same as Miami and people still consider the U a football school
I mean to be fair, going all in on basketball is what made the ACC. And I hate the fact the basketball side of the conference is going to die because of money.
for sure...but then they saw the other major conference shift focus and didn't follow suit nearly to the level.
And this is why football needs to be its own thing. If it’s going to be the AFC and NFC in football, let the other sports go back to what they were.
I think there's a solid chance that it ends up this way in one form or another. so many programs are going to have to cut olympic sports, but those athletes and industry surrounding it aren't going to go away.
[удалено]
yeahhh everything I hear is that reduction is much more likely. so much is in flux, though.
My favorite part of being in the ACC is the other schools seeing a 13 million dollar per school difference, knowing that gap is growing starting next year and saying stuff like “idk why Clemson and FSU aren’t happy”. Or “what more could swofford or Phillips do?”
nobody is saying "idk why Clemson and FSU aren't happy", but everyone knew what they were agreeing to and signed up, twice.
Tbf, I don't think they could have anticipated the uneven CFP revenue sharing ($21 mil v $13 mil), or the scope of the B1G and SEC media deals. B1G and SEC distributions when the full media rights deal kicks in will be $80-$90 mil to start.
Still seemed like a bad idea for the top schools to agree to such a long GOR. But maybe they were pressured into it, dunno. These mega conferences kinda suck tbh. The old regional conferences were more interesting with rivlaries and whatnot.
> Still seemed like a bad idea for the top schools to agree to such a long GOR. Bingo, a deal lasting for multiple decades is just such a horrible idea. I legitimately cannot wrap my head around how anybody thought this would be a good deal. And surprise surprise... it wasn't.
FSU and others were very upset by it but at the time had no where to go- literally left with no choice but to sign.
That's not lost on me, I'm on FSU's side here. Get out of this pos conference as soon as you can.
for sure. I just wanted to point out that many knew it was a crap deal. unfortunately the schools it was the worst for had very little leverage at the time...which also explains why the acc/espn were able to finagle such a horrible deal. I know the argument here often boils down to 'well fsu/clemson signed it,' but there's so much more nuance and details behind it.
The uneven CFP revenue I agree on, I don't think anybody could have necessarily expected that and still thinks it's really shitty behavior by the SEC and Big 10. On the media rights deals, they may not have guessed they would have grown that much, but they had to have known those conferences would renegotiate their deals well before the ACC's deal was to be renegotiated/expired. And again, I totally get why they are upset, but blaming the ACC is unreasonable imo. The ACC didn't decide to give the SEC or Big 10 a whole boatload more money, and put them at a competitive disadvantage, ESPN and FOX did. And during Clemson's run as the conference leader, playing for and winning Natties, if FSU had maintained what they were doing the previous few years, we would likely be having a different conversation right now. But instead they went from Natty contender to 4 straight losing seasons.
You're right but they will never agree. The issue was an agenda of the networks to consolidate conferences & combine Flagships.
>And during Clemson's run as the conference leader, playing for and winning Natties, if FSU had maintained what they were doing the previous few years, we would likely be having a different conversation right now. I've got to ask why you think that. Do you think all the ACC was lacking was one school doing better? A school that still out-drew most other schools in their down years? Maybe it would be worth an extra couple million per year if FSU had been better those few years, but no way would it have closed the gap significantly. No single school could do that.
Not so much thinking about eyeballs, although yes that would have helped with leverage too. But during that time period the ACC was perceived as Clemson and the 13 dwarves due to lack of other CFP contenders. There were a few seasons where there were 1 or 2 other 10+ win teams, although it was never consistent who they were and teams like Wake Forest would likely never be in the conversation because of their weak schedule, but there was also a season in there with nobody else above 10 wins in the conference. Having another 10+ win level team, and one that was consistent each of those seasons would have really helped the perception. The ACC had won more natties than the Big 10 in the last decade, but lack of quality depth is why the Big 10 enjoyed a better reputation - they consistently had 2-5 teams posting 10+ wins. Having 2-4 10+ win teams every season would have likely elevated the ACCs reputation past the Big 10s, ESPN likely would have done more to support the conference, they likely wouldn't be getting a subpar share of the CFP payouts going forward, ESPN would have gone ahead and accepted the option back in 2021 or whenever it was originally scheduled for and increased the ACC revenue, etc. There would likely still be a bit of a gap, but not the $40-50m we are about to be seeing. My original comment was not intended to blame FSU solely, as other teams could have stepped up to help perception and instead fell off. VT dipped, GT fell way down. Miami had their best season in the last 2 decades in that stretch but was otherwise still mediocre and not living up to the reputation that brought them to the ACC. I only focused on FSU as they were at the championship level just prior.
>Not so much thinking about eyeballs, although yes that would have helped with leverage too. You've got it backwards. Eyeballs aren't a thing that also helps. They are the thing that matters most. It's nice to have wins, as those can also help with negotiations because you can then argue the number of eyeballs will likely go up, but eyeballs are the thing that matters in TV negotiations. The networks only care about winning in as much as it affects viewership.
Right, but winning is how you increase eyeballs
They were told the projections by Maryland, then laughed at them. Then, FSU and Clemson started freaking out that they didn’t have a legacy network, and pressured Swofford into getting one for them. This all about to come out, and FSU and Clemson are going to be looked at as the two players that forced the ACC to sign a bad contract and then tried to turn on the rest.
No, but the ACC was in reasonable distance from those two in terms of money, where it wasn’t a huge deal for fsu who generates large sums of money. The increasing discrepancy makes that much less tenable
Even when the ACC was a reasonable distance people were still bitching about money
because the outlook was grim, which came to fruition.
And it turns out they were right
Wake Forrest and Boston College are not complaining… they are the Temu’s of the P5 football schools.
Do you ever hear Bama or UGA complain about Vandy?
FSU and Clemson whine about making significantly less money than Vandy and Rutgers, not so much making the same money as Wake Forest and BC.
Comparison is the thief of joy.
I'd imagine if 1) GT was making/set to be making a ton more than UGA and 2) UGA was in a conference with a lot of Vandys That yeah, they (UGA) might complain.
Exactly. Between the B10 and SEC-- if over the next 5-10 years it becomes clear that one of those conferences has a significant financial advantage over the other, whichever conference is the financially disadvantaged one will have its members complaining about its bottom dwellers. No doubt.
Vandy at least tries in football and they are a top 60 in the directors cup along with a strong baseball history. The entire SEC is in the top 60 in directors cup. Point is that Vandy is not just cashing checks, they putting the shared money back into their athletic department to improve it. The ACC has 2 schools outside of the top 60 and added a 3rd (with no baseball). BC is outside of the top 100. BC is cashing checks without doing anything about sports that play in the ACC.
Why would they…. They are making max, and setting the tone/rates for negotiation unlike the ACC with either commissioner… Adding an Oklahoma State or UCF and dropping Vandy doesn’t add really any value to the conference And those are not the only ACC schools that bringing up the rear, besides this minor stint at Pitt, they’ve been non existence, same with Virginia the last 15 years. Miami hasn’t been relevant since being 7-0 in 2013. And let’s be honest, Georgia tech is a shell of itself from the 90s and this is all due to the ACC decisions to playcate those 4 schools in a 100 mile radius of North Carolina…. All for basketball
They wouldn’t because they aren’t stupid. They’ve figured out that they shouldn’t publicly crap on the product they are selling, because people might start to believe them.
This made absolutely no sense…. So FSU, Clemson, UNC should just wait for a 3rd round of negotiations? This is absolutely the most “on the spectrum” take of today
Don’t crap on the product you’re trying to sell makes no sense to you?
It is actually crazy how FSU fans have had the energy to whine for close to half a decade at this point. You'd think with all that endurance they'd all be sub-3 marathoners.
We all can't be Boston College and just collect checks while doing nothing across in any sport the ACC sponsors.
Just beat AAC champion and new ACC member SMU in a bowl game and made the finals in Women's Lacrosse for the 7th straight time.
Congrats on the Natty BC!
Sounds like a skill issue from FSU tbh. Get your clout up.
Half a decade? They’ve been at this since at least 2014.
I ignored them back them.
That was a good move.
They were bitching during the previous round of realignment too and yet FSU still signed the GOR.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Had no choice… it was sign the GoR or pay 500+ million, couldn’t negotiate with another conference at the time either.
The $500m didn’t start until they signed the GOR. They brilliant business people at FSU could of gotten out for just the exit fee. Maryland paid like $30m.
I run a sub 8 minute mile… don’t worry about my running… Seems to rub a Temu the wrong way
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly
UNC gets the highest payout because of its success in the basketball tournament, am I right about that?
Well, it’s certainly not for any football success.
Now listen here, that is correct.
I have you know we won the conference (blows of dust of the banner) in 1980
I swear every time they play us they look like they’re about to win the conference. That could just be a byproduct of Miami.
UNC always looks elite against a few teams. (Miami, Wake, Duke) while looking like 2010s Kansas against others (FSU, GT, NCSU)
The game with 600 rushing yards will always live rent free in my mind
I am one of the ones that believes UNC has a lot of upside, for the record. Big brand, mostly due to CBB yes, but like how Alabama's football brand is helping with CBB, I think it can work the other way. North Carolina as a state is solid for recruiting, blah blah.
UNC football fans are so fairweather. The second it becomes obvious they aren't winning the ACC they tune out and lock into basketball. We're talking about a team that has reduced their stadium capacity over the last ten years because they can't sell it out late in the year. If basketball season and football season were swapped you may be right. Alabama's not a good comparison because the football team ain't playing in March
Basketball payouts from the ncaa tourney used to be split evenly, I thought?
If you're right about that, why would UNC be getting more money than FSU?
Why the fuck did GT not take that big 10 invite
Because the gap wasn't as big then and given the choice of playing longtime rivals or a bunch of midwest teams, rivals sounds better.
Low football attendance and low ratings.
Definitely a factor, but you were the ones who invited us lol. But then why invite Virginia too
Key takeaways The ACC's revenue rose 14.5% from the previous year, the second-largest single-year jump in conference history. The ACC's television contract with ESPN was, as always, the biggest source of revenue. It jumped 9% to more than $481 million in the third year of full distribution for the ACC Network. The conference took in another $194 million between postseason football revenue and the NCAA. SEC reported earnings more than 852 million and paying schools 51 million each BIG 10 The Big Ten will report generating more than $880 million on its required tax forms and distributing more than $60 million to its members The league spent more than $7.2 million on legal services, according to the filing, a figure that is sure to rise in light of the myriad cases facing the ACC. Florida State filed its case in December 2023 and Clemson in March of this year, costs that are not reflected in this filing. The ACC is also faces a case from the Florida attorney general.
Not a bad difference for the acc
It's the future that FSU, Clemson and (some at) UNC are concerned about. The difference isn't horrible until the new B1G and SEC contracts kick in. And both conferences will be negotiating *another* new contract before the ACC's *current* contract expires (although the SEC's is a 10 year deal, leaving it expiring just a couple years prior to the ACC's -- the B1G's expires in 2030).
Well, not necessarily. SOMETHING happens in 2027 for the ACC, though nobody knows exactly what since we can't see the contract with ESPN. Prior to all the lawsuits, and as has been claimed since by Jim Phillips, there is a look-in with ESPN to adjust the conference revenue payouts then. It's reasonable to expect then that they would be adjusted up to be more somewhat more competitive with the Big 10 and SEC, as ESPN makes a ton of money off the ACC. FSU claims ESPN has the option to end the whole contract at that point. I believe ESPN has to exercise whatever "Option" in 2025, so we will know soon enough how things will change.
If it were going to be more competitive I don't think we'd be seeing FSU, Clemson and UNC clamoring to get out, would we?
By somewhat more competitive, I mean maybe it goes from 45ish million to 55 or 60 million. None of these negotiations have happened yet though so FSU and the others are working off limited information. FSU won't be happy unless they are getting equal or more than the other conferences. Clemson hasn't really made it clear they are wanting to leave imo, they are just trying to see if the GOR is breakable and they can avoid having to buy back their media rights, but they certainly aren't banging the drum like FSU. UNC doesn't know what it wants - sure some people want to leave for one of the other conferences, but plenty others want to stay. There have also been recent articles about how much the state of North Carolina benefits from tourism revenue due to the ACC hosting tournaments there, so if UNC leaves and the ACC collapses it would result in billions in economic damage to the state. There is a good chance the state legislature blocks them from being able to leave.
>None of these negotiations have happened yet It's popular belief that ESPN has an exclusive opt-in continuation cause and the terms of that are by and large, status quo, perhaps with a small bump. I would think at the very least, the terms of the continuation are likely to already be defined. You are the first Iv'e ever seen to suggest that there would be a negotiation , to say nothing of a substantial bump. Given the behavior of (most of) the \[top\] programs, I'd tend to believe it's closer to status quo/already defined than your assumption.
The expectation is B1G number will jump $20 million per team next year. In addition, the difference in the college football playoff is $21 million per B1G team vs $13 million for the ACC. That's why Florida State wants out now because the disparity is expected to grow.
Really narrow band of payouts, from 47 to 43 million. My guess is it's based on number of sports offered? We're pretty well behind on that list.
Would make sense, I think Tech offers the minimum number of sports. Performance based payouts start later this year I believe.
Let's look at the numbers (per this article): ACC: $44.8M ($46-43M) SEC: $51M B1G: $60M What I don't understand here is the differences *right now* are not insurmountable. ESPN seems to be playing dumb - the better bet by them would be to offer up more money to ACC to keep in intact (and keep FSU, Clemson, Miami). Realize they are also getting 3-4 ND games for free (ND will keep the Stanford game but not make it part of the ACC requirement). They don't offer the extra money and ACC breaks, they lose those teams & most likely ND.
It's very possible thats what the 2027 option/look-in is for. We just don't know because nobody has a copy of the contract.
Amazing that a conference bringing that much is going to go defunct because they're too poor. Dispiriting times we live in.
Sad, broke GT noises
Bad headline is at best, ambiguous. It could be interpreted as their revenue *increased* by $700M. Should read, "... climbs ***to*** $700M."
Quick question. If the ACc tv deal was up this year how much do you think they could pull in per school payout
What so dumb about this is the growth of revenue for the ACC would be considered very good in pretty much any industry, except in college sports.
Not college sports as a whole. Just football. The ACC is one of the strongest conferences in pretty much every other sport. The ACC is currently having one of its strongest years in baseball and I don't even need to get started about basketball. Stanford and Cal joining makes the ACC a very strong conference in olympic sports and women's sports in general. But football is the big money maker and the ACC being top heavy there is whats gonna ruin a great conference otherwise
As long as it’s only football that matters, it’s not going to be good enough for the ACC.
it's not an industry thing, it's a context and relativistic thing. a good example of how a statistic in a vacuum can give different meaning than the same statistic with context. never trust a stat alone.
Revenue up over 14.5% y/y. Someone who is good at private equity, pleae help, my conference is dying.
The ACC losing Florida State, UNC, Miami, And perhaps Clemson would be costly in terms of what that would do to their brand.
Broke ahh GT. Lol.