ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[AZOrange]

Do they get their first or does the NFL see the opportunity to create a second tier league using the USFL and XFL as it's foundation?

So far I know NFL has discussed international leagues to date but not a second tier league...

The NFL is definitely going to have a role here.

 

[AZOrange]

They’ll never rotate anyone out if there’s a 30-something team super league. Just like the NFL doesn’t rotate out the Lions or whatever. It’s a cartel.

Sorry meant if it was smaller like 12-16.

 

[Scooch]

Sorry meant if it was smaller like 12-16.

I get it but that’s way too small for a TV deal that needs to generate billions.

 

[Willy75]

As someone who does this for a living, these armchair ratings analyses are very flawed. You can’t just take straight averages and project them to revenue or whatever. There needs to be a ton of controls put against the data, including opponent, telecast channel, seasonality, etc.

If Wake scheduled 4 elite P5 OOC opponents each year, and they were all aired on broadcast channels, guess what?… They’d have the highest average TV audience in the conference.

How does the fact that ND has committed to play 5 ACC opponents each year for the next ten years plus factor into valuation?

 

[Scooch]

Backed by Saudi money, perfect. Btw I think this was tried in European soccer and there was such a public outcry it fell apart fast.

The Europeans caved to fan demands. That’ll never ever happen here because college fans have been brainwashed into thinking this is all good and cool. We’re a huge part of the problem.

 

[Chris02M]

Me and a few others have been arguing for a west coast expansion to the ACC for months but many dismissed the idea and our concerns about the Big 12 outflanking the ACC as the third best conference. Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, ASU and Utah made a ton of sense. Now the Big 10 outplays us and pounces on adding UW and UO (for now) and the sorry Big 12 outflanks the ACC again. The ACC leadership and school presidents are a bunch of fools and have been behind the 8-ball for over a year.

oregon and washington were always big ten bound and after that i think our preference was stanford since it would add money to our contract with the ND -Stanford adding to acc inventory

 

[Scooch]

How does the fact that ND has committed to play 5 ACC opponents each year for the next ten years plus factor into valuation?

I mean that’s been baked into the ACC’s media deal since the day ND joined and agreed to that schedule.

 

[CU44SE]

The dust is starting to settle, the Big 12 was left for dead years ago. And then again when the Texas and Oklahoma left. Now they are seen in a position of strength.

These things change all the time. The ACC is locked unless something drastic happens. When the Big 12’s contract comes due next, I believe 2030, if necessary, the ACC could most definitely steal some teams that fit geographically.

ESPN lost this series of conference realignment. If they settle down and get everything in order, they may be in a better position in 7 years where they want to take back some teams.

Ultimately, what’s best for the athletes and the fans? A system similar to the NFL. 80 teams under one umbrella. Small pods of “divisions” based on geography within a larger subset of conferences also based on geography. You get rid of the 1aa games and the non p5 puff schools and every week is a must watch game. At the end of the year, 12 teams or 16 teams make the playoffs.

This allows football to make absurds amount of money and the Olympic sports play local games with lower travel costs.

The biggest problem with this? The confrence affiliates will lose their lunch money. This is in the best interest of all the schools but all the conference employees and all the conference commissioners would be jetsoned aside and lose jobs and income. Instead of 15 commissioners that line their pockets and the NCAA, only 1 commissioner would line his pockets. For this reason, the Big10, SEC, etc will never advocate for this model. They will do whatever they can to keep status qou and keep growing to save there jobs and income.

 

[orangecuse]

Complete anarchy. I liked it when I was a kid, conferences based on geography, now conferences are based on greed.

Well, greed is unequivocally the American way after all.

 

[Chris02M]

1. Of course it will. That conference will make more money than we did 10 years ago. We can figure out how to run an AD on that.

2. The national B12 will not make a significant amount more, and our programs will be stuck as mediocre. It is still a loser conference. I rather take a little less money, be a lot more competitive, and play like minded schools in a Northeastern centric conference.

the conference you proposed would be single digit million per year

 

[Nick44]

B1G has a great strategy. They keep growing bigger then they can pick up the biggest pieces of other conferences. PAC12 is more vulnerable than ACC. But after B1G picked up biggest PAC12 pieces. The bigger and better B1G can lure best ACC schools to B1G.

Lure? If there was no GOR, any one of them would take a BIG offer. Pretty easy sell that would be.

 

[Scooch]

I don't see the point of adding schools to existing territories or 2 schools from the same territory, unless the school is a big brand. I think the B12 will be sorry for doing so in their next TV contract.

Also, the SEC will not want to absorb the ACC. They won't take both FSU and Miami. Maybe not even one. The B18 can always get into Florida anyway so you aren't stopping anything. It doesn't make sense for the SEC to take GA Tech. Out of the 4 Carolina schools, I only see one making cents. In VA, only one. Adding Louisville is not worth it. I don't see adding the three Northern schools, unless Notre Dame comes which is very very unlikely. So the SEC really would only want FSU, Clemson, UNC, and VA Tech. The other 10 make little to no cents.

I think the SEC will have more interest in going West. I think Kansas, Colorado, BYU, Arizona State, San Diego State are all potential candidates.

I could see a P2 of 24 schools each. SU has an outside chance of making that, but it is more likely that we don't get an invite. Personally I rather see SU stay in a rebuilt ACC than join a national 24 team B12. Give me FAU, Duke, Wake, James Madison, Navy/Georgetown, Villanova, Army/St Johns, SU, UConn, BC.

We’d never join a league like that. Worst case scenario we’d make football independent and join the Big East for everything else.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

oregon and washington were always big ten bound and after that i think our preference was stanford since it would add money to our contract with the ND -Stanford adding to acc inventory

Exactly. Posters here seem to think the ACC can just do whatever they want by waving a magic wand. It takes both sides to come to an agreement, and there is was never going to be Pacific expansion unless at least six (including UO and UW) were willing to be onboard. They weren't, because they knew the B1G would make a "better" offer.

Stanford and Cal are ACC material for sure, but not as just a two-team package.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

the conference you proposed would be single digit million per year

Even if it were that low, the difference with the B12 won’t be eye popping. There is only so much $ to go around. With 48 P2 teams the B12 will be relegated off of T1/T2 TV. They won’t be making anywhere near what they do today. An extra $10-$15M isn’t going to make SU any better when the P2 is making $100M.

 

[Cuse181]

Od

TV Viewership in ACC from 2015 til 2022 is ranked in the following:

ND(3.5M), Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, VPI(1.0M) all average 7 figures in that order.
UNC(800k), Pitt, NC State, Cuse(650k), GT, UVA(544k) all average over 500k in that order.
Wake(435k), BC, and Duke(320k) round out the bottom.

I’d be interested to see where GT ends up if you take out the Georgia games

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

What would the perceived value be, to ESPN, in getting the ACC Network into the San Diego, San Fran, and maybe some of the Mountain West markets like Boise etc.?

I guess I am wondering. Could adding the likes of SDSU, Stanford, Cal, OSU, WSU and maybe some other 6th school out west open up a situation that could allow ESPN to potentially bump the media deal even $3-4 million per team? Then maybe that plus a modest redistribution of $ based on football performance could allow for the Clemson level team to make, say, $6-8 million more a year than they do now, while the lower teams stay close to flat from where they are now.

This is likely not even possible, but just spitballing.

 

[Chris02M]

Exactly. Posters here seem to think the ACC can just do whatever they want by waving a magic wand. It takes both sides to come to an agreement, and there is was never going to be Pacific expansion unless at least six (including UO and UW) were willing to be onboard. They weren't, because they knew the B1G would make a "better" offer.

Stanford and Cal are ACC material for sure, but not as just a two-team package.

maybe for football only stanford and cal and someone like uconn just to make it 18 total could work and just accn subscriptions would result in a slight bump

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

maybe for football only stanford and cal and someone like uconn just to make it 18 total could work and just accn subscriptions would result in a slight bump

I think the travel logistics/expenses would nullify any gains from adding just the two. A six or seven team pod that plays themselves plus a couple of eastern games a year would have addressed that, kept a lot of the feel of the PAC, and created some intriguing matchups.

UConn shouldn't even be in the discussion. They have five titles in ncaab and still don't move the needle with the big boys in terms of brand.

 

[NJneer12]

Exactly. Posters here seem to think the ACC can just do whatever they want by waving a magic wand. It takes both sides to come to an agreement, and there is was never going to be Pacific expansion unless at least six (including UO and UW) were willing to be onboard. They weren't, because they knew the B1G would make a "better" offer.

Stanford and Cal are ACC material for sure, but not as just a two-team package.

I think people trying to poach B1G and B12 are dreaming.

The idea of an expanded P12/ACC up until last night is not.

The ACC tried and engaged in talks prior to and during all of us throwing expansions ideas. I mean this is a forum, right, where we can exchange ideas and hypotheticals? Is that like okay still? There we're plenty of interesting ideas I've read here. Some really fun.

Those Pac-4 teams plus whatever combo to get to 6 western schools out of Boise St, Air Force, SDSU won't move it. Would adding 4 more of the remaining G5 schools left like Memphis, Tulane, USF, Temple, Uconn, App St, ECU move it? Will going to 9 games may move the needle with more content?

I think ACC explored all of this the whole time. And it didnt happen. So we got our answers. I have to think they sat in a zoom meeting spouting the same ideas people wrote in here and rolled their eyes at or looked into. You have to explore every opportunity.

 

[javadoc]

I have 17 pages to catch up on but a couple thoughts come back to mind repetitively.

SU’s lucky in our current position.

FSU can kiss my ass

If we want to make more money and be more attractive, we have to win games.

Attendance and viewership is NOT an issue for SU. Program performance is.

Viewership will rise as we become the preferred watch for NJ residents.

 

[TampaLaker]

Interesting side note. Greg and JW are good acquaintances. Greg has a home on Skaneateles Lake and knows JB very well. Greg is very smart, and I believe would make a great leader for a 4-league super conference.

Not to mention that he grew up on county line rd between Skaneateles and Auburn, is a graduate of Cortland State and SU, and his wife is a Skaneateles HS grad, nurse, used to have her own business (not sure if she still has it).
They still look at the area as a “home.”

 

[OrangeFoo]

The dust is starting to settle, the Big 12 was left for dead years ago. And then again when the Texas and Oklahoma left. Now they are seen in a position of strength.

These things change all the time. The ACC is locked unless something drastic happens. When the Big 12’s contract comes due next, I believe 2030, if necessary, the ACC could most definitely steal some teams that fit geographically.

ESPN lost this series of conference realignment. If they settle down and get everything in order, they may be in a better position in 7 years where they want to take back some teams.

Ultimately, what’s best for the athletes and the fans? A system similar to the NFL. 80 teams under one umbrella. Small pods of “divisions” based on geography within a larger subset of conferences also based on geography. You get rid of the 1aa games and the non p5 puff schools and every week is a must watch game. At the end of the year, 12 teams or 16 teams make the playoffs.

This allows football to make absurds amount of money and the Olympic sports play local games with lower travel costs.

The biggest problem with this? The confrence affiliates will lose their lunch money. This is in the best interest of all the schools but all the conference employees and all the conference commissioners would be jetsoned aside and lose jobs and income. Instead of 15 commissioners that line their pockets and the NCAA, only 1 commissioner would line his pockets. For this reason, the Big10, SEC, etc will never advocate for this model. They will do whatever they can to keep status qou and keep growing to save there jobs and income.

I don’t generally comment on realignment nonsense because honestly I just don’t care anymore. But two thoughts to share:
- sutomcat alluded to this earlier… ESPN is not in great shape from a long term perspective precisely because of the insane media deals they have been making. They just laid off a bunch of college football on air talent. Disney is actively looking for strategic partners which I read to be partners who will contribute cash or streaming only content. Whatever is next is going to involve a lot less cash. I suspect FSU maximizes revenue by staying in the ACC for the next 10 years. Their bankers will tell or have told them that already… the uneven revenue distribution play is a cash grab that goes nowhere
- European soccer league is not dead. The oIl rich sovereign wealth funds are taking over soccer. In 10 years they will create a super league with the finals rotating in one desert capital after another.

 

[Cuse181]

I don’t generally comment on realignment nonsense because honestly I just don’t care anymore. But two thoughts to share:
- sutomcat alluded to this earlier… ESPN is not in great shape from a long term perspective precisely because of the insane media deals they have been making. They just laid off a bunch of college football on air talent. Disney is actively looking for strategic partners which I read to be partners who will contribute cash or streaming only content. Whatever is next is going to involve a lot less cash. I suspect FSU maximizes revenue by staying in the ACC for the next 10 years. Their bankers will tell or have told them that already… the uneven revenue distribution play is a cash grab that goes nowhere
- European soccer league is not dead. The oIl rich sovereign wealth funds are taking over soccer. In 10 years they will create a super league with the finals rotating in one desert capital after another.

I talked about this the other day, ESPN is looking for a partner to help them launch a linear like DTC service. They see cable is dying, they want to be able to leverage their brand via a streaming service that carries their live content. The search for a strategic partner is key because Disney is getting crushed by the debt they took on after the fox acquisition. They are working on spinning/selling ABC and then taking on a partner for ESPN. They are not going broke because of their media deals, quite the contrary actually: those sports deals are the only reason they are viable. They are struggling because their lower cost content that usually drove a majority of the margin (sportscenter for instance) is obsolete in the age of social media. They want a partner to help reduce the cost of launch of course, but also defend against the inevitable impact to cable revenue (what’s left of it) when the cable guys complain that they’re no longer paying for an “exclusive” service so their rates should drop. It’s a prudent move, but their hand was moreso forced by ABC, and broadcast TV in general, struggles. Frankly, if they can get 40-50M subs to a 20/month ESPN service they probably come out ahead of where they were with cable agreements.

 

[MSOrange]

 

[Tango32]

Add Cal, Stanford, SDSU

Break a broom stick in half and tell Oreg ST and Wash St to fight over the last seat.

Move on.

Next targets would be ND and WVU.

Their respective Presidents fight on the under card for the Elon vs Zuckerberg fight. Winner gets an ACC bid. I like it.