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

[RF2044]

The ACC waits all this time on realignment to then bring in the bottom of the Pac-12? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Let me ask a question, now that the dust has settled from the crazy development from late last week.

Just asking this from a devil's advocate perspective. Of the P5, the Big 12's position prior to all this latest change was the most tenuous / unstable. And landing first Colorado, then capitalizing on the B1G's continued cannibalization of the PAC-10 to add Utah and the Arizona schools gave them a quartet of additions that are in their general geographic footprint. So it was good from a stabilization factor.

But do any of those four schools contribute financial "value?"

And let's just say for argument's sake that the ACC had proactively made the same moves [even though the geography makes no sense] -- and gone out and added Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah. Would that have benefitted our conference, or just added four new mouths to feed?

Genuinely curious to hear what people think. In retrospect, seems like the Big 12 got a lot of credit for being proactive, but did they accomplish anything beyond stability?

 

[CuseLegacy]

Yeah not sure then. I know based on tax filing that they’re a not for profit but haven’t been able to determine where they are organized. I’ve seen references to NC but can’t confirm it and it should be on the SOS site somewhere like you said.

I took the search a step further on the NC SOS and searched under register agents and company officials. The ACC CFO did show up but it was for a company called the Hub LLC which seemed to be for managing rental space of the ACC corporate offices in Greensboro.

 

[TexanMark]

Why not. Let’s do it. Phil Knight gives a ton of money to Stanfords business school. Not quite the football program, but I’ll take it!

A scheduling alliance?, sure especially if it makes money for the ACCN...but 3 of the 4 perceived weakest brands joining? NFW

 

[tep624]

A scheduling alliance, sure especially if it makes money for the ACCN...but the 3 of the 4 perceived weakest brands joining? NFW

I can see a fit with Stanford and Cal. The problem is that because the ACC either sat on its hands or wasn’t able to get something done, there’s little it any logical programs to bundle them with to make a west division now. San Diego St imo is the only other realistic option. Hell the Pac12 was looking at expanding with SMU if that tells you anything about the availability of quality western programs.

And on SMU, I laughed so hard when I saw that. Pac 12 sat on its hands while the Big 12 is on the ropes not once but twice and could have added a robust Midwest slate of schools. And then at the 11th hour that’s the well they go to after the SEC and Big 12 have completely picked it over.

 

[Toga]

David Teel weighs in.

Teel: Separate governance for football may be only way to repair college sports

Major college sports have long been broken, compliant to televsion’s every whim in exchange for rights fees that fund irrational salaries, palatial infrastructure and, yes, non-revenue Olympic sports.

richmond.com

 

[TexanMark]

It is easy to take shots at the PAC12 most of the blame is Larry Scott but maybe, just maybe USC and others need scrutiny too. Maybe they rejected ideas of the PAC12 going for the Big12 kill shot

 

[Millhouse]

You make good points but the problem is that no one in Boston cares about B.C. sports and that shows up in people not attending games and people not watching them on tv. We bring more money to the table and at the end of the day, that is what matters most.

A more direct ala carte system will not be great for bc. Seemed like realignment before was more about the number of people who'd get whatever network in a cable bundle and it didn't really matter if anyone watched it.

 

[mscanlo]

Let me ask a question, now that the dust has settled from the crazy development from late last week.

Just asking this from a devil's advocate perspective. Of the P5, the Big 12's position prior to all this latest change was the most tenuous / unstable. And landing first Colorado, then capitalizing on the B1G's continued cannibalization of the PAC-10 to add Utah and the Arizona schools gave them a quartet of additions that are in their general geographic footprint. So it was good from a stabilization factor.

But do any of those four schools contribute financial "value?"

And let's just say for argument's sake that the ACC had proactively made the same moves [even though the geography makes no sense] -- and gone out and added Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah. Would that have benefitted our conference, or just added four new mouths to feed?

Genuinely curious to hear what people think. In retrospect, seems like the Big 12 got a lot of credit for being proactive, but did they accomplish anything beyond stability?

The financial value is the long-term stability for the conference (and as a result, the other teams in the conference).

I imagine the remaining Pac 12 schools are saying that, in retrospect, Colorado had significant financial value to them that they weren't properly valuing before Colorado left and caused the dominoes to fall (or maybe they were, who knows).

I think that is the concern of many SU fans. It's not the potential revenue gap anymore, or the additional travel costs of having to fly cross country, it's that if a domino falls in the ACC, it could mean SU is left with no chair (or at least not at a Power conference).

I imagine Stanford/Cal/Wazzou would be happy to have to deal with covering $10M in travel cost vs. scrambling to preserve their athletic program right now

 

[NYCCuse826]

The ACC waits all this time on realignment to then bring in the bottom of the Pac-12? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Jim Phillips has done a really bad job. He should have known better being the AD of Northwestern when the B1G expanded.

 

[Jake]

 

[RF2044]

The financial value is the long-term stability for the conference (and as a result, the other teams in the conference).

I imagine the remaining Pac 12 schools are saying that, in retrospect, Colorado had significant financial value to them that they weren't properly valuing before Colorado left and caused the dominoes to fall (or maybe they were, who knows).

I think that is the concern of many SU fans. It's not the potential revenue gap anymore, or the additional travel costs of having to fly cross country, it's that if a domino falls in the ACC, it could mean SU is left with no chair (or at least not at a Power conference).

I imagine Stanford/Cal/Wazzou would be happy to have to deal with covering $10M in travel cost vs. scrambling to preserve their athletic program right now

I understand the "risk" of conference de-stablization. As an SU fan, I clearly have those same concerns, as well. But that hasn't happened yet.

There's nothing that would prevent the SEC [for example] from trying to poach us down the road. That could still happen. That would still happen whether we added Cal, Stanford, or any of the other schools the Big 12 just added.

So I'm not sure that the ACC adding those four schools would have done ANYTHING to increase the value of the conference short term, or prevent the SEC / B1G from making expansion overtures down the road when they get frisky again.

 

[Cusefan69]

Let me ask a question, now that the dust has settled from the crazy development from late last week.

Just asking this from a devil's advocate perspective. Of the P5, the Big 12's position prior to all this latest change was the most tenuous / unstable. And landing first Colorado, then capitalizing on the B1G's continued cannibalization of the PAC-10 to add Utah and the Arizona schools gave them a quartet of additions that are in their general geographic footprint. So it was good from a stabilization factor.

But do any of those four schools contribute financial "value?"

And let's just say for argument's sake that the ACC had proactively made the same moves [even though the geography makes no sense] -- and gone out and added Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah. Would that have benefitted our conference, or just added four new mouths to feed?

Genuinely curious to hear what people think. In retrospect, seems like the Big 12 got a lot of credit for being proactive, but did they accomplish anything beyond stability?

Good questions. I think some on the board were hoping we would raid Oregon and UW. That had little likelihood of happening. I would also add again, allot of people are talking like the B12 is safe and they are no safer than anyone else right now, especially the ACC. Only the top half of the B10 and SEC are"safe" because questions around scale, available dollars and ultimately what a final state looks like for college ball are all unknowns. All other teams are and will be subject to purge and consolidation. I still think the ACC is short term protected until someone proves they can leave.

 

[Cuse181]

“Might be” oh no, it is IS the worst move. The biggest mooch

 

[Scooch]

I understand the "risk" of conference de-stablization. But that hasn't happened yet.

There's nothing that would prevent the SEC [for example] of trying to poach us down the road. That could still happen. That would still happen whether we added Cal, Stanford, or any of the other schools the Big 12 just added.

So I'm not sure that the ACC adding those four schools would have done ANYTHING to increase the value of the conference short term, or prevent the SEC / B1G from making expansion overtures down the road when they get frisky again.

You got it. Some people think there is a magical move the ACC can make that’ll keep the conference together forever. That’s nonsensical. As long as there is a wide disparity in revenue between the ACC and the B1G/SEC there will always be a chance that schools leave.

The “do something!” crowd is living in a fantasy world.

My hunch is that the end state — likely 6-10 years from now — is that much of the current ACC ends up in either the B1G or SEC, and the rest either slinks back to regional conferences or joins the Big 12, which acts as a land of misfit toys holding company.

It’s pretty wild that the reason the Big 12 may survive is because they don’t have any schools the B1G or SEC want.

 

[UpstateSM]

“BuT oUr BaSkEtBaLl TeAm HaS a GoOd ReCrUiTiNg ClAsS!!” - Rutgers fans

 

[NYCCuse826]

I don’t think Cal is spending ultra flamboyantly, it may be the cost of living adjustment for Northern California. It's like looking at the US defense budget compared to Russia or China; it may seem astronomically more, but they're not spending $497 on toilet seats either.

It's not CoL increases. It's the stadium that's built on a fault line. Doesn't help that Cal has pretty much said athletics don't matter there. Their football program used to be a Top 25 program. Syracuse has a much brighter future than them because there are still people who care.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Let me ask a question, now that the dust has settled from the crazy development from late last week.

Just asking this from a devil's advocate perspective. Of the P5, the Big 12's position prior to all this latest change was the most tenuous / unstable. And landing first Colorado, then capitalizing on the B1G's continued cannibalization of the PAC-10 to add Utah and the Arizona schools gave them a quartet of additions that are in their general geographic footprint. So it was good from a stabilization factor.

But do any of those four schools contribute financial "value?"

And let's just say for argument's sake that the ACC had proactively made the same moves [even though the geography makes no sense] -- and gone out and added Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah. Would that have benefitted our conference, or just added four new mouths to feed?

Genuinely curious to hear what people think. In retrospect, seems like the Big 12 got a lot of credit for being proactive, but did they accomplish anything beyond stability?

I think it could have been possible to get Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah at even money. That doesn’t make SU richer but it keeps the ACC #3.

I think Colorado was P12 or B12. I think ASU and Utah went B12 because they had no other choice.

 

[Scooch]

“Worst move” isn’t a good headline, although the piece itself is good.

Adding Rutgers was great for the other B1G schools — they’ve made a ton of $$$ in cable TV revenue and haven’t had to deal with another legit competitor in any sport. Win win.

One thing this piece does illustrate is that simply getting a huge bump in revenue means **absolutely nothing** for a school in terms of on field success.

 

[SU68]

Let me ask a question, now that the dust has settled from the crazy development from late last week.

Just asking this from a devil's advocate perspective. Of the P5, the Big 12's position prior to all this latest change was the most tenuous / unstable. And landing first Colorado, then capitalizing on the B1G's continued cannibalization of the PAC-10 to add Utah and the Arizona schools gave them a quartet of additions that are in their general geographic footprint. So it was good from a stabilization factor.

But do any of those four schools contribute financial "value?"

And let's just say for argument's sake that the ACC had proactively made the same moves [even though the geography makes no sense] -- and gone out and added Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah. Would that have benefitted our conference, or just added four new mouths to feed?

Genuinely curious to hear what people think. In retrospect, seems like the Big 12 got a lot of credit for being proactive, but did they accomplish anything beyond stability?

At this time, stability is something to seek. The ACC would LOVE to be able to say that the conference is stable.

 

[RF2044]

At this time, stability is something to seek. The ACC would LOVE to be able to say that the conference is stable.

We have conference stability, current state.

Sure, it is desirable -- but as Scooch points out above there is no magic solution for permanent, indefinite stability -- or making the conference bullet proof to future attempts to poach our teams.

Again, I don't think that adding any of those schools would change the ACC's stability. It would have been a short-term knee jerk that wouldn't have improved the conference's revenue situation or enhanced our ability to stave off the wolves long-term.

Our stability is predicated upon our current contract and GOR. When that expires, all bets are off. Adding Utah or Arizona wouldn't change that.

 

[SanDiegoCuse]

A good friend of mine works at the University of Wyoming and spoke to a head coach there yesterday. He was told the Cal, Oregon State and Washington State are Mountain West bound and Stanford is going independent.

 

[SU68]

We have conference stability, current state.

Sure, it is desirable -- but as Scooch points out above there is no magic solution for permanent, indefinite stability.

Again, I don't think that adding any of those schools would change the ACC's stability. Our stability is predicated upon our current contract and GOR. When that expires, all bets are off. Adding Utah or Arizona wouldn't change that.

I agree. The stability is good for the Big 12 and the four-corners schools. The ACC needs to add Stanford and Cal if ESPN will sweeten the pocketbook to calm down Clemson and FSU.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

We have stability, current state.

Sure, it is desirable -- but as Scooch points out above there is no magic solution for permanent, indefinite stability.

Again, I don't think that adding any of those schools would change the ACC's stability. Our stability is predicated upon our current contract and GOR. When that expires, all bets are off. Adding Utah or Arizona wouldn't change that.

Pure stability, no. But #3 conference stability, yes.

I think there is a good chance the B12 is in similar shoes as the PAC was with the next TV contract. A bit easier to raid the B12 when you won the PAC leftovers.

Yes, the top of the ACC will still leave one day. But the leftover #3 conference will be the ACC and not the B12. Which gives stability to the current ACC leftovers. Now those schools have to hope for room in the B12.

You also have the ACCN/ESPN where the B12 likely gets stuck with a streaming partner for T3, which is worse.

The ACC still can end up raiding the B12 in 5 years, but it will take longer to pull over as many teams.

 

[007]

You got it. Some people think there is a magical move the ACC can make that’ll keep the conference together forever. That’s nonsensical. As long as there is a wide disparity in revenue between the ACC and the B1G/SEC there will always be a chance that schools leave.

The “do something!” crowd is living in a fantasy world.

My hunch is that the end state — likely 6-10 years from now — is that much of the current ACC ends up in either the B1G or SEC, and the rest either slinks back to regional conferences or joins the Big 12, which acts as a land of misfit toys holding company.

It’s pretty wild that the reason the Big 12 may survive is because they don’t have any schools the B1G or SEC want.

The "Land of Misfit Toys" Conference" is gold Scooch.

 

[Cuse'91]

Pure stability, no. But #3 conference stability, yes.

I think there is a good chance the B12 is in similar shoes as the PAC was with the next TV contract. A bit easier to raid the B12 when you won the PAC leftovers.

Yes, the top of the ACC will still leave one day. But the leftover #3 conference will be the ACC and not the B12. Which gives stability to the current ACC leftovers. Now those schools have to hope for room in the B12.

You also have the ACCN/ESPN where the B12 likely gets stuck with a streaming partner for T3, which is worse.

The ACC still can end up raiding the B12 in 5 years, but it will take longer to pull over as many teams.

The Big 12 is mostly make up of large state flagship schools; in states where football is a genuine passion. The remnants of the vulture picked ACC will consist of mostly mid to small private schools, in states that don't really care about college football. Don't think we need to call in Sherlock Holmes for this one.