So what happens IF Cal / Stanford are brought in at partial share ($20M per year) for 5 years and SMU comes in for 0, AND there is distribution of the net to the top 4 teams only"
ESPN bumps the OVERALL payout by $35 M per new team = $105M
Less $40M ($20 each) to Stan / Cal
Leaves $65M for distribution to the TOP 4 ACC PROGRAMS on top of "normal" distribution:
ACC championship winner = 50% = $32.5M
Runner up = 25% = $16.25
#3 = 15% = $9.75
#4 = 10% = $6.5
Or some such math. Not good for the conference overall ... compared to the B10 / SEC ... and after 5 years ... What? Sure hope they don't vote YES. Blow this crap conference up. Partial, temporary "solution" does nothing to address the fundamental problem. Crap conference, crap contract, crap future IN the conference.
You know I respect your posts, but those numbers are simply not happening.
First, ESPN's best offer to the Pac 12 was $30M per school, which the Pac 12 promptly rejected. Then Apple TV offered the Pac 12 $20M per school. Now, you think cash-poor ESPN will pay even more than their highest offer for 2 of the 4 teams that were not even offered by the Big 10 or Big 12? And $35M for SMU, when they get, what, $6M per year now?
Second, I hate to point this out, but the inherent weakness with all of this "ACC gets more money with more teams" theory is that we are going to be on the same TV outlets as the SEC. So I'm not sure how anyone thinks that we will get MORE games on ABC/ESPN simply because we have more teams. We are just going to get more games on ACCN, ESPN+, and The CW. We're not pushing SEC newbies Texas and Oklahoma to streaming so that people can watch Wake-Stanford on OTA.
The beauty of joining the Big 10 deal is that they have THREE separate OTA networks, plus more cable outlets. The Big 10 math works. Jamming more SEC/ACC teams into ABC/ESPN does not work as well as people seem to be dreaming, either from a ratings or a MONEY standpoint.
Finally...the other problem with envisioning this under the current ABC/ESPN arrangement is that it makes WAY MORE SENSE for ESPN to simply redirect this mythical available pool of money towards...oh, I don't know...a transfer of rights for a couple of schools like F$U and Clemson...to jump from the ACC to the SEC. THAT is the much smarter and better use of funds. THEN you have F$U and Clemson playing some high-quality matchups that people actually want to watch. It's like saying "my investment strategy is DIVERSIFICATION, I'm going to spread my money all around to a dozen different stocks". And, sure, from a "risk-averse" standpoint, that's great, you'll get a nice, neet return on investment. But if you really believe strongly in one particular stock, and that belief is based on solid analysis, then you put all of your money into it and make a much larger return. And the Southeastern Conference is one of the safest high-yield investments out there.
Look, who knows if the ACC will throw a Hail Mary here, but it's stupid and it won't change economic reality. So while we try to leverage every trick in the book to fudge a system where the 4 biggest programs in a 17-team conference make more money than anyone else, the Big 10 and SEC will be getting larger payouts EVERY SINGLE YEAR the old-fashioned way. By EARNING it.
What is funny is that people are proposing a Big-East-like unequal distribution, which was the exact system that killed the Big East and led us join the ACC. So, yeah, history is going to repeat itself.
And all because a couple of dopey sportswriters and some "I do assignments" poster on this board have bamboozled everyone into believing that the Grant of Rights is some Gordian knot that we can't solve.
Hilarious.
When the ACC is inventing these genius Big-East solutions to problems, you know it's time to kill the ACC.
