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

[DocFlanders]

1) this is a great thread from Hale. He’s really excellent.

2) why do writers give stuff like this away for free on freakin’ Twitter?! Have some self respect and monetize it. My goodness.

Pretty sobering article if your in the ACC, and especially so if your in the ACC and not considered very attractive to the SEC or B1G

 

[Cuse'91]

Waiting until the Titanic slips completely under the waves is risky for every ACC program, even us. BIG12 is our best life raft, but would they hold a place at the table for us until 2036? What if they expand West into the Pac12, and fill up their spots. Would West Virginia speak up for us? I'm sure they would want Pitt for the Backyard Brawl, but us and BC too? BIG12 really at an advance due to geographic location. Can expand in multiple directions; but maybe more importantly, have a good football brand to sell.

 

[elimunelson]

1) this is a great thread from Hale. He’s really excellent.

2) why do writers give stuff like this away for free on freakin’ Twitter?! Have some self respect and monetize it. My goodness.

He hits the nails on the multiple heads for sure.

I think he slightly discounts the exogenous political landscape and how it could shape shift everything almost instantaneously. He mentions the employee designation but I think we could see politicians openly pine for schools to leave the ACC with the amt of money at play elsewhere and potentially driving home hearings to completely figure out college sports.

Anyway, it's all good theatre but Hale cleaned it up into something very digestable

 

[Willy75]

1) this is a great thread from Hale. He’s really excellent.

2) why do writers give stuff like this away for free on freakin’ Twitter?! Have some self respect and monetize it. My goodness.

One thing he doesn't cover is that, if players are held to be employees, then you can have a union(s). That's not necessarily a totally bad thing, since school/conferences can negotiate things like limits on NIL craziness with a union which they couldn't with individual players. The NCAA would likely have a diminishing role.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Well, we ain't last...

 

[AlaskaSU]

In theory, this works. In reality, without bottom feeders to beat up and get to winning records, USC will either take a beating of their own or will beat up on teams that were once world beaters and are no more. Fans and ratings will decrease. It is a zero sum gain, wins will equal losses.

Placing all the world beaters in two conferences without sufficient bottom feeders leaves a conference full of "has beens".

Think of it in terms of the bell curve, the left end is bottom feeders, the right end is big winners, the bulk of everyone else is distributed in the middle. Who among UM, MSU, tOSU, PSU, UNL, USC and Wiscy will be happy to drop to the middle on a consistent basis? Only 1-2 will remain perennial powers.

Likewise in the SEC, who among Bama, UGA, LSU, OU, UT, Florida, Tennessee (remember when they were a great team?) and TAMU is willing to languish as a mediocre team?

Fans are not going to follow mediocre and losing teams nor will the rest of CFBdom.

USC, UCLA, Texas, OK are all eager to make more money regardless of likely future records as they face more quad 1 teams. Voters are not stupid. Killer conferences will send many teams to bowls. These teams might have mediocre records in conference and unblemished OOC records None of them are going to lobby for the addition of bottom feeders. Quad 4 wins mean nothing. Being a bottom feeder is not going to get us into a super-conference

 

[orangefog]

How the hell do we pay out less than the Big12? ESPN has to straighten that out.

 

[JimBoston]

Again, it is free to ESPN. Why give up something that is free of cost and you can make money on, no matter how small that number is? Your argument is great in 2030 but not so much right now.

ESPN needs content for their networks and ESPN+. Those 16 games you listed is lost content. Those 4 games that were sold to RSNs is lost income, without reducing any cost.

BC is not worth a full share. But Clemson is worth a lot more than a full share. So dumping BC and paying Clemson does nothing for lowering costs. Meanwhile you lower inventory, leaving you with less content to fill ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, ACCN, and ESPN+.

10 years from now Clemson is going to want what they are worth. So paying Clemson and keeping BC increases costs. At that point ESPN would do as you propose. But there is zero reason to do it now.

Content is free to ESPN? They are paying schools top dollar to show games on the ACCN and RSNs which is crazy. The ACCN after initially grabbing subs due to being pushed on to the cable systems, will start losing subscribers at a fast rate just like the decline in cable subs for ESPN. The SECN and BTN are facing the same problem. It's one of the reasons they are expanding with brands to prepare for the streaming future! ESPN is looking at going direct to consumer, but the price will probably be $30 to $50 per month if they bundle their networks. If ESPN goes direct, how many subs would the ACCN get and at what price?

The bottom line is that the ACC has a flawed strategy. The conference has a LT media deal which is not competitive, the conference isn't prepared for the streaming future, and the conference has schools that don't add value. And, how did the Big 12 outmaneuver the ACC to become the 3rd most stable conference? The ACC should have either expanded, cut schools, or disbanded.

Syracuse needs to look out for itself as the ACC and the schools in the ACC are not looking out for Syracuse.

 

[Stern]

So apparently, UCONN to the Big 12 may be happening. Per another report the Big 12 commissioner spent most of the week on the UCONN campus talking about possibly making a deal

 

[Cuse'91]

So apparently, UCONN to the Big 12 may be happening. Per another report the Big 12 commissioner spent most of the week on the UCONN campus talking about possibly making a deal

If true, BIG12 going coast to coast. Definitely going to add West coast teams as well. Hope there's a seat at the table when ACC implodes.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

So apparently, UCONN to the Big 12 may be happening. Per another report the Big 12 commissioner spent most of the week on the UCONN campus talking about possibly making a deal

More mouths to feed from the same sized pie.

if UConn was thrilled sending their non-revenue teams to Houston and Tulsa, wait until they have to visit Waco and Stillwater every year.

 

[Cuse'91]

Honestly, the better scenario for us may be for GT to join the Maggity Seven and dissolve the ACC. Let 4 teams go to each of B1G and SEC. Let the rest of us get on with our program lives, without an avalanche hanging over our heads.

 

[HtownOrange]

USC, UCLA, Texas, OK are all eager to make more money regardless of likely future records as they face more quad 1 teams. Voters are not stupid. Killer conferences will send many teams to bowls. These teams might have mediocre records in conference and unblemished OOC records None of them are going to lobby for the addition of bottom feeders. Quad 4 wins mean nothing. Being a bottom feeder is not going to get us into a super-conference

SHORT VERSION:
Show your win distribution for the SEC (8 conference games annually) and B1G (9 conference games annually. The list the teams that will accept their fate as perennial losers and prove that fanbases and donors will support your position. This assumes each SEC and B1G wins every OOC game annually. Obviously, I will also demand that you prove the likelihood of your dream scenario, but for now, we will assume you are correct.

LONG VERSION:
The super conferences are allegedly leaving D1 when they break away. How will they play D1? That is the point of the alleged superconference, to become the NFL lite or NFL developmental league, if you prefer.

Even if the superconferences don't break away, they will play D1, the records will show they beat 3 or 4 bottom feeders and lost to 5-8 games in conference. How does that impress voters and Bowls? Especially if they fail to meet the requisite win total. Worse yet, the middle teams will lose some of the games against the lesser conferences.

You forget that the remaining D1 conferences will have the top of each conference with high win counts. The Big 12, PAC and ACC, as well as other conferences will have good win totals. You cannot justify selecting a 6-6 SEC team that has lost 6 conference games of 5 conference games and 1 OOC game over a 10, 11, 12 win ACC, Big12, PAC team for a playoff spot. Neither the fans nor the voters will accept that. Nor will the media. The ridicule will be too much for anyone of reason to accept that a 6-6 LSU is better that a 12 win FSU, Clemson, Washington, Baylor, Houston, etc.

Add to the above the fact that fans and donors LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida Tennessee, OU, UT, TAMU will not accept less that 9-10 wins, there is insufficient wins available to all of these schools. Add in Ole Miss, Arkansas, Mississippi State, USC-East and Mizzou fans will not accept less than 7-9 win seasons as the norm. This is the problem, there is not enough wins for everyone.

Assuming the SEC maintains an 8 conference 4 OOC game formula. Using your suggestion that the SEC wins every OOC game. This could happen periodically, but not every year, so this is your dream scenario. That leaves 8 conference games X 16 teams, (yes, 8X16 equals 126, but each game will involve two conference teams resulting in only 64 conference games) or 64 wins and 64 losses. Now the wins must be distributed:

The first and easiest example is that you have eight teams with 8 conference wins each and eight teams with zero wins, 64 wins and 64 losses, or eight teams that finish 12-0 and eight teams that finish 4-8. Which teams will accept their fate? (I'll give you Vandy and Kentucky)

A second scenario
- Lets be generous and allow four teams to win 8 conference games, this equals 32 wins of 64 and leaves 32 wins for the remaining 12 teams.
- Let's allow four teams to win 6 conference games, that's another 24 wins, leaving 8 wins (64- 32-24=8) for the remaining 8 teams.
- Lets allow four teams to win 2 conference games, that's the final 8 games (64-32-24-9=8=0), leaving four teams with zero conference wins.

You are free to create your own win distributions, the results are the same, too many bigwigs will no longer be bigwigs. Too many fans and donors will stop supporting the team or at least decrease their support.

Then do the same for the B1G. (Or rinse and repeat because the numbers do not work.)

Then factor in the fact that no conference has won every OOC game annually for any period of time, this destroys your scenario because no conference wins every OOC game year in and year out.

I am not trying to be a son of a gun, (I know, I am doing a good job of it, apologies) but I am attempting to have fans apply logic to the mess around SU sports. The internet mouth pieces speak loud, often, and without logic. When logic is applied, they all fall apart. It's like the GOR argument, if it was as easy as everyone claims, it would have happened already.

 

[TerryD]

ND only takes in less TV revenue now because they drafted such a long contract. In 1991 when they agreed to the contract, $25m was a lot of money. In the next couple years they will renegotiate a new contract and make a ton more, and they don't have to share with anyone else. Why would they join a league for football at that point? Especially when they already have the ACC giving them money for all other sports.

ND signed five year deals with NBC from the initial 1991 deal until renewing the 2010 deal in 2013.

It then signed a ten year deal running from 2016-2025.

The original 1991 deal was for $9 million a year.

 

[TerryD]

I don't think the issue is challenging the GORs as I would think they would be tough. This is about dissolving the conference to cancel the GORs. It doesn't seem anybody actually knows how many schools are required to vote to dissolve the ACC. Is it a majority? Is it 60%? Is it 75%? I'm thinking the M7 are focused on how many votes to dissolve the conference.

As for ESPN, they are looking to reduce costs. Four schools going to the SEC, 4 schools to the Big 10, and 2 schools to the Big 12 would reduce ESPN's costs and increase the number of good matchups in the SEC and Big 12. The 4 schools leaving for the Big 10 would cost ESPN zero as FOX has the Big 10 rights and 4 schools would have to figure out a new conference which also reduces ESPN's costs. Notre Dame would continue doing what ND does, look out for itself.

The bottom line is that it seems the ACC as it is constituted now will not exist in a range of 2 to 13 years. What is Syracuse's plan?

Doesn't every school do this? Can you name one school that made a conference realignment move not to benefit themselves, but to benefit others instead?

 

[Cuse'91]

Doesn't every school do this? Can you name one school that made a conference realignment move not to benefit themselves, but to benefit others instead?

It don't think anyone imagines ND doing anything against its self interest at this point. Just as the BigEast and ACC wouldn't have allowed ND BB and Olympic sports into their leagues, without benefit to themselves. Fairly clear now, to all those involved, to not expect ND to ride in on a white horse for anyone.

 

[AlaskaSU]

SHORT VERSION:
Show your win distribution for the SEC (8 conference games annually) and B1G (9 conference games annually. The list the teams that will accept their fate as perennial losers and prove that fanbases and donors will support your position. This assumes each SEC and B1G wins every OOC game annually. Obviously, I will also demand that you prove the likelihood of your dream scenario, but for now, we will assume you are correct.

LONG VERSION:
The super conferences are allegedly leaving D1 when they break away. How will they play D1? That is the point of the alleged superconference, to become the NFL lite or NFL developmental league, if you prefer.

Even if the superconferences don't break away, they will play D1, the records will show they beat 3 or 4 bottom feeders and lost to 5-8 games in conference. How does that impress voters and Bowls? Especially if they fail to meet the requisite win total. Worse yet, the middle teams will lose some of the games against the lesser conferences.

You forget that the remaining D1 conferences will have the top of each conference with high win counts. The Big 12, PAC and ACC, as well as other conferences will have good win totals. You cannot justify selecting a 6-6 SEC team that has lost 6 conference games of 5 conference games and 1 OOC game over a 10, 11, 12 win ACC, Big12, PAC team for a playoff spot. Neither the fans nor the voters will accept that. Nor will the media. The ridicule will be too much for anyone of reason to accept that a 6-6 LSU is better that a 12 win FSU, Clemson, Washington, Baylor, Houston, etc.

Add to the above the fact that fans and donors LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida Tennessee, OU, UT, TAMU will not accept less that 9-10 wins, there is insufficient wins available to all of these schools. Add in Ole Miss, Arkansas, Mississippi State, USC-East and Mizzou fans will not accept less than 7-9 win seasons as the norm. This is the problem, there is not enough wins for everyone.

Assuming the SEC maintains an 8 conference 4 OOC game formula. Using your suggestion that the SEC wins every OOC game. This could happen periodically, but not every year, so this is your dream scenario. That leaves 8 conference games X 16 teams, (yes, 8X16 equals 126, but each game will involve two conference teams resulting in only 64 conference games) or 64 wins and 64 losses. Now the wins must be distributed:

The first and easiest example is that you have eight teams with 8 conference wins each and eight teams with zero wins, 64 wins and 64 losses, or eight teams that finish 12-0 and eight teams that finish 4-8. Which teams will accept their fate? (I'll give you Vandy and Kentucky)

A second scenario
- Lets be generous and allow four teams to win 8 conference games, this equals 32 wins of 64 and leaves 32 wins for the remaining 12 teams.
- Let's allow four teams to win 6 conference games, that's another 24 wins, leaving 8 wins (64- 32-24=8) for the remaining 8 teams.
- Lets allow four teams to win 2 conference games, that's the final 8 games (64-32-24-9=8=0), leaving four teams with zero conference wins.

You are free to create your own win distributions, the results are the same, too many bigwigs will no longer be bigwigs. Too many fans and donors will stop supporting the team or at least decrease their support.

Then do the same for the B1G. (Or rinse and repeat because the numbers do not work.)

Then factor in the fact that no conference has won every OOC game annually for any period of time, this destroys your scenario because no conference wins every OOC game year in and year out.

I am not trying to be a son of a gun, (I know, I am doing a good job of it, apologies) but I am attempting to have fans apply logic to the mess around SU sports. The internet mouth pieces speak loud, often, and without logic. When logic is applied, they all fall apart. It's like the GOR argument, if it was as easy as everyone claims, it would have happened already.

So much rambling... In the case of UCLA, the realignment decision was made without even notifying the board of regents. As far as the schools decision makers it was a no brainer. College sports are now big money and money talks. Chancellors go for the money, as they should.

You think that the schools are making a mistake. LOL if you think you know more they know.

BTW, what makes you think that these are my dream scenarios? Fact is that the schools are doing what is best for them financially. Too bad if you do not like it. Neither do I, but I don't presume to know more than the schools know.

 

[Orangefan1]

My frustration with the Magnificent Morons:
—Why did they invite Syracuse and Pitt in the first place if you were gonna just try to blow the whole thing up 10 years later anyways? Thanks for nothing. I thought this was seen as a long term partnership. Meaning decades.
—Also, why didn’t Swofford and the Presidents also try to poach Penn State at the same time? That could have maybe jarred loose the Michigan schools and OSU.
—Why did they sign that moronic extra long term contract?
—Why did they drag their feet for so long getting a conference channel off the ground?
—having the most revenue doesn’t actually equal winning national titles and making playoffs, as Phillips has pointed out. Why has Clemson won two recent titles (more than most SEC schools and all BIG schools).
—If Clemson can win, why can’t Florida State. Get your act together. The revenue gap isn’t why they’ve fallen to middle of the pack in their own conference.
—Why are they dragging their feet on expansion now? A West Coast flank with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and the Arizon schools would be great and will keep them out of the Big 12’s hands. The ACC needs to use its academic stature to its advantage in its fight with the Big 12 and PAC 12.

This has been the problem all along with the ACC why not try to poach some of the teams you listed now? Penn State is really key. Why hasn’t Oregon been invited yet? Lol it’s comical. I’m also annoyed that these conferences barely value us. Why bother being in the ACC if these teams want to leave anyway. So we can stay together and every year the big wig school so to speak hold our feet to the fire and they get more revenue sharing? We need to continue to invest hugely in football and be consistently good to get back to the table. Hopefully basketball will turn around and it looks like we have the right leader to do that now in red.

 

[elimunelson]

Doesn't every school do this? Can you name one school that made a conference realignment move not to benefit themselves, but to benefit others instead?

ND should do what’s in their best interest. Syracuse should too.

I hope our interests align and we stay committed to each other.

 

[TexanMark]

If the BigXII offers UCONN a spot can or will the ACC try to get them first?

These conference additions are done in secret with NDAs. The ACC might never hear.

 

[HtownOrange]

So much rambling... In the case of UCLA, the realignment decision was made without even notifying the board of regents. As far as the schools decision makers it was a no brainer. College sports are now big money and money talks. Chancellors go for the money, as they should.

You think that the schools are making a mistake. LOL if you think you know more they know.

BTW, what makes you think that these are my dream scenarios? Fact is that the schools are doing what is best for them financially. Too bad if you do not like it. Neither do I, but I don't presume to know more than the schools know.

Rambling? Please show your logic with hard numbers. You have ramble but show no data, no official reports, no hard numbers speculation to support your position.

I understand why people think that $10MM, $20MM, $30MM, etc. sounds like a lot of money, but in the scheme of university operations, that amounts to peanuts. Universities are multi-BILLION dollar entities. The differences you are making mountains out of are mole hills to university chancellors and presidents. Read SU’s financial report, maybe a few other universities’ financial reports. Athletics at SU is less than 10% of the university operations and athletics is not a part of the mission of the university. Athletics is used for marketing the university, building student an community unity and identity, fun, etc., it enhances the experience but it is not a functional part of the mission.

I don’t believe I said UCLA made a mistake, that is your projection. Please don’t read anything more than I say into my postings (except with Rutgers, everyone is free to assume the worst about Rutgers).

Regarding your dream scenarios, you argued that the SEC and B1G would all win their respective OOC games. I granted your argument and plugged in the numbers to prove under your scenario they still don’t work. And that is a perfect world for the SEC and B1G.

While I agree that universities should and will do what is in their best interest, right now, waiting is in the ACC’s best interest. More so for SU as athletics teams that make money are on the right trajectory. You are free to document and support how the GOR can easily and inexpensively be broken. Right now it is roughly $1Billion to leave the ACC and purchase back the broadcast rights per team, which assumes ESPN approves.

 

[kcsu]

Rambling? Please show your logic with hard numbers. You have ramble but show no data, no official reports, no hard numbers speculation to support your position.

I understand why people think that $10MM, $20MM, $30MM, etc. sounds like a lot of money, but in the scheme of university operations, that amounts to peanuts. Universities are multi-BILLION dollar entities. The differences you are making mountains out of are mole hills to university chancellors and presidents. Read SU’s financial report, maybe a few other universities’ financial reports. Athletics at SU is less than 10% of the university operations and athletics is not a part of the mission of the university. Athletics is used for marketing the university, building student an community unity and identity, fun, etc., it enhances the experience but it is not a functional part of the mission.

I don’t believe I said UCLA made a mistake, that is your projection. Please don’t read anything more than I say into my postings (except with Rutgers, everyone is free to assume the worst about Rutgers).

Regarding your dream scenarios, you argued that the SEC and B1G would all win their respective OOC games. I granted your argument and plugged in the numbers to prove under your scenario they still don’t work. And that is a perfect world for the SEC and B1G.

While I agree that universities should and will do what is in their best interest, right now, waiting is in the ACC’s best interest. More so for SU as athletics teams that make money are on the right trajectory. You are free to document and support how the GOR can easily and inexpensively be broken. Right now it is roughly $1Billion to leave the ACC and purchase back the broadcast rights per team, which assumes ESPN approves.

Stop making sense

 

[oldpinepoint]

Rambling? Please show your logic with hard numbers. You have ramble but show no data, no official reports, no hard numbers speculation to support your position.

I understand why people think that $10MM, $20MM, $30MM, etc. sounds like a lot of money, but in the scheme of university operations, that amounts to peanuts. Universities are multi-BILLION dollar entities. The differences you are making mountains out of are mole hills to university chancellors and presidents. Read SU’s financial report, maybe a few other universities’ financial reports. Athletics at SU is less than 10% of the university operations and athletics is not a part of the mission of the university. Athletics is used for marketing the university, building student an community unity and identity, fun, etc., it enhances the experience but it is not a functional part of the mission.

I don’t believe I said UCLA made a mistake, that is your projection. Please don’t read anything more than I say into my postings (except with Rutgers, everyone is free to assume the worst about Rutgers).

Regarding your dream scenarios, you argued that the SEC and B1G would all win their respective OOC games. I granted your argument and plugged in the numbers to prove under your scenario they still don’t work. And that is a perfect world for the SEC and B1G.

While I agree that universities should and will do what is in their best interest, right now, waiting is in the ACC’s best interest. More so for SU as athletics teams that make money are on the right trajectory. You are free to document and support how the GOR can easily and inexpensively be broken. Right now it is roughly $1Billion to leave the ACC and purchase back the broadcast rights per team, which assumes ESPN approves.

Big picture I agree with you however aside from Rutgers, athletics should be a self generating cash flow positive operation that doesn’t dip into the general fund. Need more money to keep up, that’s the issue. Everything costs more, need better facilities, less dollars to go around due to NIL.

 

[HtownOrange]

Big picture I agree with you however aside from Rutgers, athletics should be a self generating cash flow positive operation that doesn’t dip into the general fund. Need more money to keep up, that’s the issue. Everything costs more, need better facilities, less dollars to go around due to NIL.

SU athletics generally are a positive cash flow returning money to the university most years.

I never said SU should not look out for the university. I believe the situation is not near as dire as the inter web talkers. Most don’t look at the facts.

The ACC deal was good when it happened, it is meh today. However, the ACC pays out more than the projections, has look-ins, and key schools are improving their sport. Factor in the B1G shares gate revenue puffing up their payouts and that they will not start at $80million annually, the situation is not near as bad. Throw in ESPN has invested heavily in the ACC (buying the broadcast rights), in the ACCN, has no incentive to destroying a cash cow nor has incentive to allow profitable partners to go make money for competitors, and you see the ACC has some leverage.

Does this equate to the same payout? No. Though it does give one time. The GOR is more costly to buyout now than it will be in 5 years or 10 years. Maybe then the break even analysis is viable, especially with SU sports performance trending up.

The issue is that panicking over internet loud mouths who don’t use facts or at best cherry pick facts is not a sound financial plan. Top investors don’t chase movers, they project the movers over long terms and buy them when the time is right. Look at the top people in any field, they usually don’t follow the crowd.

 

[Cuse'91]

SU athletics generally are a positive cash flow returning money to the university most years.

I never said SU should not look out for the university. I believe the situation is not near as dire as the inter web talkers. Most don’t look at the facts.

The ACC deal was good when it happened, it is meh today. However, the ACC pays out more than the projections, has look-ins, and key schools are improving their sport. Factor in the B1G shares gate revenue puffing up their payouts and that they will not start at $80million annually, the situation is not near as bad. Throw in ESPN has invested heavily in the ACC (buying the broadcast rights), in the ACCN, has no incentive to destroying a cash cow nor has incentive to allow profitable partners to go make money for competitors, and you see the ACC has some leverage.

Does this equate to the same payout? No. Though it does give one time. The GOR is more costly to buyout now than it will be in 5 years or 10 years. Maybe then the break even analysis is viable, especially with SU sports performance trending up.

The issue is that panicking over internet loud mouths who don’t use facts or at best cherry pick facts is not a sound financial plan. Top investors don’t chase movers, they project the movers over long terms and buy them when the time is right. Look at the top people in any field, they usually don’t follow the crowd.

I agree with you that the ACC deal isn't that bad. But, relative to B1G, SEC, and even new BIG12 deal, it's clearly behind, and that won't change. There's too much football dead weight in the ACC, in an era, where football is king. Syracuse is part of that problem, along with Duke, BC, Wake, others. Those programs that are desirable to the B1G and SEC WILL get poached, that's been proven beyond a doubt. Is it proactive for SU to not look to get off the lounge deck of the Titanic; preferablely before our toes feel the chill of the North Atlantic. Sitting back and collecting a check, until the conference dies, might not be the way to go here.