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

[Scooch]

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.

Yup. We all know that the B1G desperately wants to add UNC and UVA. It’ll almost certainly happen eventually — the only thing preventing it right now is the GoR, and the only thing preventing it in the future is some unforeseen Congressional legislative action. Personally I think the latter is unlikely.

The calculus for ACC schools leaving is about how close to the GoR expiration can they get where it makes financial sense to buy their way out. My hunch is 3-5 years ahead of the expiration.

 

[Scooch]

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.

Bingo. The Big 12 needs to change their conference name and position themselves as a “best of the rest” league. There will be 2.5 power conferences in a decade-ish and they’ll be the .5.

 

[NJneer12]

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

They didn't wait. There's plenty of reports that the ACC was engaged in talks with the Pac 12 teams to work something out.

It didn't work out and now it seems the the remaining Pac-4 want to jump on the lifeboat since their preferred boats, even with friends on that boat, left them stranded.

 

[NJneer12]

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

Why isn't it stable right now? At this point it's just been FSU crying and no one has left the conference since Maryland.

Now in 3 years...lol who knows.

 

[Cuse'91]

Why isn't it stable right now? At this point it's just been FSU crying and no one has left the conference since Maryland.

Now in 3 years...lol who knows.

Dino is going into, what, year 7 or 8? Doesn't seem like a long time at all to me; it's gone by really fast. That's the amount of life left for the ACC.

 

[qdawgg]

Yup. We all know that the B1G desperately wants to add UNC and UVA. It’ll almost certainly happen eventually — the only thing preventing it right now is the GoR, and the only thing preventing it in the future is some unforeseen Congressional legislative action. Personally I think the latter is unlikely.

The calculus for ACC schools leaving is about how close to the GoR expiration can they get where it makes financial sense to buy their way out. My hunch is 3-5 years ahead of the expiration.

I think closer to 3, at 5 it’s still a huge chunk of money IMO. Not only need full school approval but it’ll take potentially a decade or more to break even.

 

[mscanlo]

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.

that's fair. you're right that moves today won't necessarily mean that there is stability 10+ years down the road, let alone 2-3 years from now. The current trend is to add teams in the hopes of stability.

I can't fault people for using the logic that adding teams to the ACC today, helps create greater stability both currently, and down the road, compared to not adding teams

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Bingo. The Big 12 needs to change their conference name and position themselves as a “best of the rest” league. There will be 2.5 power conferences in a decade-ish and they’ll be the .5.

Shouldn't the ACC try to position itself to be that 0.5 conference longterm? If in 5 years the B12 is getting offered $25M and the ACC is making $35M with 8 years left on the TV deal, wouldn't schools in the B12 have interest?

Why should BC, SU, Pitt, Louisville, Duke, Wake (and maybe more) want to concede to the B12, especially after seeing what happened to Cal and Stanford? Wouldn't it be better to take in the B12 schools that fit with the above ACC schools, all the while swimming in that exit fee money?

The schools that plan on leaving do not care. So if they don't care either way, shouldn't the ACC schools that risk becoming the next Cal or Stanford be pushing to raid the B12?

The ACC has an Eastern core, the B12 a Texas core. If SU gets left behind, I rather the ACC win out as the #3 conference.

 

[Chip]

He's bashing the wrong organization. The NCAA doesn't have oversight on conference realignment because the member schools won't allow it to have oversight on conference realignment because they want a free hand. The NCAA messes up enough on the things that it is supposed to monitor. Stick to that. Bashing them about things they're not allowed to monitor isn't right.

Not sure if you read the Twitter thread but it was a little deeper than that.

He made a lot of good points I think, but at the end of the day no one cares. More TV money is all that matters. Literally (and I hate that word as much as anyone) all that matters.

 

[Willy75]

I wish the ACC could do a straight up trade with the Big 12, Louisville for WVU.

 

[Scooch]

Shouldn't the ACC try to position itself to be that 0.5 conference longterm? If in 5 years the B12 is getting offered $25M and the ACC is making $35M with 8 years left on the TV deal, wouldn't schools in the B12 have interest?

Why should BC, SU, Pitt, Louisville, Duke, Wake (and maybe more) want to concede to the B12, especially after seeing what happened to Cal and Stanford? Wouldn't it be better to take in the B12 schools that fit with the above ACC schools, all the while swimming in that exit fee money?

The schools that plan on leaving do not care. So if they don't care either way, shouldn't the ACC schools that risk becoming the next Cal or Stanford be pushing to raid the B12?

The ACC has an Eastern core, the B12 a Texas core. If SU gets left behind, I rather the ACC win out as the #3 conference.

I’m not saying the ACC shouldn’t try. Of course they should. I’m saying that they likely won’t succeed because they have a half-dozen schools that are immediately attractive to the Power 2.

And the Big 12 is an immensely better football conference than whatever remnants are left in the ACC. In a direct to consumer world there will be far more subscriptions sold to watch that Texas-centric league.

 

[Scooch]

I think closer to 3, at 5 it’s still a huge chunk of money IMO. Not only need full school approval but it’ll take potentially a decade or more to break even.

For sure, I’m just spitballing. Mostly pontificating that things will happen ahead of the expiration of the GoR.

 

[Chip]

I wish the ACC could do a straight up trade with the Big 12, Louisville for WVU.

And the B1G sells us Rutgers and Maryland for a bag of footballs. I'm pretty sure every cable company in the northeast (along with the cord cutting live TV stations) will still carry B1G network without them.

4 X 16, where 3 of the 4 are in contiguous states (I think). Scratch that, I forget about UCF and Cincy.

Tell ND they can't be in the playoffs unless they join a conference. See who is first to kick someone out in order to land them.

 

[Cusefan69]

My thing is people are thinking that the B12 is going to remain static on their top end. When the B10 jettisons Indiana, Rutgers and Illinois for better clubs like TCU, Cincinnati and Utah, then what does the B12 look like? If SEC goes larger and get rid of Vandy and Auburn or Missouri and grab some ACC and B12 top teams. The point is the B12 will most definitely not look the same. Suddenly they don't look like #3 .

 

[Hoo's That]

Not sure if you read the Twitter thread but it was a little deeper than that.

He made a lot of good points I think, but at the end of the day no one cares. More TV money is all that matters. Literally (and I hate that word as much as anyone) all that matters.

Yes. he made a ton of good points. That said, if he wants to bash people over conference realignment he should be bashing his two "good guys" Michigan's president and AD. They're part of the group keeping the NCAA from getting involved in realignment. The Pac-12 doesn't disintegrate if the B1G doesn't accept USC and UCLA as members.

 

[Scooch]

My thing is people are thinking that the B12 is going to remain static on their top end. When the B10 jettisons Indiana, Rutgers and Illinois for better clubs like TCU, Cincinnati and Utah, then what does the B12 look like? If SEC goes larger and get rid of Vandy and Auburn or Missouri and grab some ACC and B12 top teams. The point is the B12 will most definitely not look the same. Suddenly they don't look like #3 .

It’s **extremely** unlikely that any schools are shed from the B1G and SEC. The lawsuits would be IMMENSE and there would be immediate Congressional intervention.

 

[Scotch]

Shouldn't the ACC try to position itself to be that 0.5 conference longterm? If in 5 years the B12 is getting offered $25M and the ACC is making $35M with 8 years left on the TV deal, wouldn't schools in the B12 have interest?

Why should BC, SU, Pitt, Louisville, Duke, Wake (and maybe more) want to concede to the B12, especially after seeing what happened to Cal and Stanford? Wouldn't it be better to take in the B12 schools that fit with the above ACC schools, all the while swimming in that exit fee money?

The schools that plan on leaving do not care. So if they don't care either way, shouldn't the ACC schools that risk becoming the next Cal or Stanford be pushing to raid the B12?

The ACC has an Eastern core, the B12 a Texas core. If SU gets left behind, I rather the ACC win out as the #3 conference.

This is a fascinating post because it's all about timing. Right now the ACC is stronger and could potentially poach the B12, but the poached teams wouldn't add significant value and may not be desirable to the most valuable ACC teams (UNC, UVA, Clemson, FSU, etc.). So you have this divergence of motives in which the lower level ACC teams may want to pursue numbers for future survival sake while the top ACC teams may not care.

Obviously the geography limitations also play a role and in addition to more money the ACC would have to really sell some B12 teams on a structure that made sense (West division vs. East division, etc.). But this really comes down to who is going to absorb who when the music stops.

 

[NYCCuse826]

Shouldn't the ACC try to position itself to be that 0.5 conference longterm? If in 5 years the B12 is getting offered $25M and the ACC is making $35M with 8 years left on the TV deal, wouldn't schools in the B12 have interest?

Why should BC, SU, Pitt, Louisville, Duke, Wake (and maybe more) want to concede to the B12, especially after seeing what happened to Cal and Stanford? Wouldn't it be better to take in the B12 schools that fit with the above ACC schools, all the while swimming in that exit fee money?

The schools that plan on leaving do not care. So if they don't care either way, shouldn't the ACC schools that risk becoming the next Cal or Stanford be pushing to raid the B12?

The ACC has an Eastern core, the B12 a Texas core. If SU gets left behind, I rather the ACC win out as the #3 conference.

An alliance should be the next step. What's stopping the SEC from looking West?

 

[Cusefan69]

It’s **extremely** unlikely that any schools are shed from the B1G and SEC. The lawsuits would be IMMENSE and there would be immediate Congressional intervention.

Interesting and appreciate your inputs. I would have thought league resets would be on the table to optimize quality of assets. If there is no shedding, that certainly reduces permutations of what could happen.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Orangefizz]

My thing is people are thinking that the B12 is going to remain static on their top end. When the B10 jettisons Indiana, Rutgers and Illinois for better clubs like TCU, Cincinnati and Utah, then what does the B12 look like? If SEC goes larger and get rid of Vandy and Auburn or Missouri and grab some ACC and B12 top teams. The point is the B12 will most definitely not look the same. Suddenly they don't look like #3 .

If the Big Ten jettisoned any teams, it would be Northwestern, Purdue and Rutgers.

 

[cusefan88]

I think the next thing we see will be leagues asking schools to leave.

Trade Lville for WVU

 

[SU91]

The worst realignment move ever is worse than you thought

Rutgers’ time in the Big Ten, college football's most lucrative conference, has been a competitive and financial nightmare.

theathletic.com

 

[kcsu]

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

The acc took a swing but was outbid by the other leagues is my take

 

[HRE Otto IV]

An alliance should be the next step. What's stopping the SEC from looking West?

Is there anything left in the West? The only candidates are San Diego State, Arizona State, BYU, and Colorado. Would adding 3-4 of those schools really be worth it?

I can see the SEC staying at 16.