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

[CousCuse]

I can't see how remaining in the PAC benefits Arizona at all athletically. If they stay, it would be because of their academic associations with the other PAC schools.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I can't see how remaining in the PAC benefits Arizona at all athletically. If they stay, it would be because of their academic associations with the other PAC schools.

Neither conference is good at football.

Since the BCS put #1 vs #2 in 1998:
Title games
B12 1 (TCU last year)
P10 2 (Oregon 2010 and 2014)

National Champs since 1938
B12 1 (BYU 1984)
P10 1* (Colorado 1990, Washington 1991)
* they had 2 split titles

SU has as many Titles in that time frame as those entire conferences.

For comparison the ACC minus Clemson, FSU, and Miami:

NCGs: 1 (VA Tech 1999)
Titles: 2.5 (Syracuse 1959, Pitt 1976, GA Tech split 1990)

Even without the Top 3 ACC programs the ACC has had more success.

Also with Texas and Oklahoma gone it will hurt recruiting as kids will want to play in the SEC vs B12.


BBall the B12 is clearly better. Even taking away Kansas, the B12 teams have been to significantly more final fours in the 2000s. But is going to a harder BBall conference going to help or hurt Arizona?

 

[CousCuse]

Neither conference is good at football.

Since the BCS put #1 vs #2 in 1998:
Title games
B12 1 (TCU last year)
P10 2 (Oregon 2010 and 2014)

National Champs since 1938
B12 1 (BYU 1984)
P10 1* (Colorado 1990, Washington 1991)
* they had 2 split titles

SU has as many Titles in that time frame as those entire conferences.

For comparison the ACC minus Clemson, FSU, and Miami:

NCGs: 1 (VA Tech 1999)
Titles: 2.5 (Syracuse 1959, Pitt 1976, GA Tech split 1990)

Even without the Top 3 ACC programs the ACC has had more success.

Also with Texas and Oklahoma gone it will hurt recruiting as kids will want to play in the SEC vs B12.


BBall the B12 is clearly better. Even taking away Kansas, the B12 teams have been to significantly more final fours in the 2000s. But is going to a harder BBall conference going to help or hurt Arizona?

Well, if the PAC manages to stay together, is truly a zombie conference. UW and OU are out the door ASAP and Stanford and CAL both think they have a good shot at the B1G as well. Then you have ASU who just got AAU status. Utah thinks they have a chance as a travel partner and Colorado probably does too. OSU and WSU both know their fate and want the PAC to remain as long as possible. All those 9 teams want the PAC to muddle along and have a clear option should the B1G call them rather than have to go to the Big12, except for WSU and OSU who are Mountain west bound. That leaves Arizona who has no shot at all for the B1G. They will end up in the Big12 now or later. Why would they put their athletic programs in limbo instead of jumping now? I personally don't think that the new Pac contract, should they get one, will be very beneficial to those programs with very little visibility on network TV.

 

[HtownOrange]

Neither conference is good at football.

Since the BCS put #1 vs #2 in 1998:
Title games
B12 1 (TCU last year)
P10 2 (Oregon 2010 and 2014)

Not to detract from your point, it is well put. However, a clarification is appropriate:

OU won in 2000 and UT won in 2005. We understand that both are leaving the B12, but the titles were won under the Big 12 banner.

Also, USC split with LSU in 2003 and won it all in 2004. Again, we know they are leaving, but the titles were won under the PAC banner.

As I said, you make a good point and it stands. Now back to the thread

 

[dasher]

That's the point I'm trying to make. The attorneys can't break it. Paying a hefty exit fee is only possible if they have already secured a soft landing spot that will give them very large checks that will eventually help recoup their losses. Texas' and Oklahoma's paying a hefty exit fee and USC's and UCLA's waiting for the expiration are concessions that the GoRs can't be broken for just the costs of going to court, which has long been a contention by many.

Of course. And if the GOR could be so easily broken, it already would have been.

 

[HtownOrange]

Of course. And if the GOR could be so easily broken, it already would have been.

Some people cannot grasp the concept, no matter how often Hoo's That, you, me, and others explain the basic point.

 

[WoadBlue]

Well, if the PAC manages to stay together, is truly a zombie conference. UW and OU are out the door ASAP and Stanford and CAL both think they have a good shot at the B1G as well. Then you have ASU who just got AAU status. Utah thinks they have a chance as a travel partner and Colorado probably does too. OSU and WSU both know their fate and want the PAC to remain as long as possible. All those 9 teams want the PAC to muddle along and have a clear option should the B1G call them rather than have to go to the Big12, except for WSU and OSU who are Mountain west bound. That leaves Arizona who has no shot at all for the B1G. They will end up in the Big12 now or later. Why would they put their athletic programs in limbo instead of jumping now? I personally don't think that the new Pac contract, should they get one, will be very beneficial to those programs with very little visibility on network TV.

Pac people always have been very arrogant. That includes the leadership and not just causal fans. So the Pac has always thought itself too good to think in terms of expanding way from the far west. They would have taken Big 12 teams, but only if Texas led the charge. By the 1990s, it should have been clear that what the Pac needed most were CST games for conference play and many more EST games in OOC play. Only then could Pac TV numbers grow. The Pac refused top see even as their TV numbers in both revenue sports kept dropping.

Today, that means that Pac is as dead man walking as you say wit only 1 basic way out: the ACC. If the Pac could secure a deal with the ACC to play multiple IOOC games in both revenue sport each year, that might save the league for more than a few years, The only way I see a 'merger' is if the Pac reduced its members for that merger to no more than 7: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Utah, Arizona St, and Arizona. And I think the Pac remains far too arrogant to make that move.

Of course, I also see the ACC as far too arrogant to drop the total dead weight of Wake and BC and to force everybody to play as tough an OOC slate as possible every year.

Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[SWC75]

Notre Dame, the Tiger Woods of college football:

MSN

"There have been times when people thought giving [Notre Dame's independence] up was inevitable," he said. "I don't get that sense right now."

Just as Tiger still gets the eyes glued to the TV set, the Irish still figure they will get the best deals because they are...NOTRE DAME!

 

[MSOrange]

 

[baggerbob]

He states what we have come to know, by allowing the basketball schools to veto this is the mess we have.

 

[Scooch]

Good piece. I disagree with Delaney on a couple points.

1) As lacking in foresight as the rejection of Penn State was by the Big East was in 1984, I think PSU still leaves for the B1G eventually. I don’t think a PSU-BE marriage would have lasted, nor would it have stemmed the movements to come.

2) The NCAA’s ludicrous rule that required two, 6-team divisions to hold a football champ game was an incredibly meaningful dynamic for expansion. Arguably every conference expansion decision in the 90s and early 2000s was heavily influenced by that.

I did like his categorization of “strategic expansion” and “reactive expansion”. Generally speaking, most moves by the SEC and B1G fall into the former, and most everyone else’s fall into the latter.

 

[elimunelson]

Good piece. I disagree with Delaney on a couple points.

1) As lacking in foresight as the rejection of Penn State was by the Big East was in 1984, I think PSU still leaves for the B1G eventually. I don’t think a PSU-BE marriage would have lasted, nor would it have stemmed the movements to come.

2) The NCAA’s ludicrous rule that required two, 6-team divisions to hold a football champ game was an incredibly meaningful dynamic for expansion. Arguably every conference expansion decision in the 90s and early 2000s was heavily influenced by that.

I did like his categorization of “strategic expansion” and “reactive expansion”. Generally speaking, most moves by the SEC and B1G fall into the former, and most everyone else’s fall into the latter.

Penn St was never forever Big East. I agree 100%. It's hard to do the hindsight game with all of this stuff because the money got to levels never imagined. SU football in 1988 was bigger than probably all but 10-13 schools in terms of notoriety, success, history and interest. This stuff moved so much in the past 35 years it's crazy

this was dropped today and i think there's some morsels of info that i found interesting too:

Can Notre Dame still afford independence? Don't bet against the NBC marriage

Notre Dame's price of independence has gone up amid skyrocketing SEC and Big Ten TV deals. Here's why the NBC relationship still matters.

theathletic.com

ND would like 10mm per home game. i think if they achieve that with the ACC payout, they aren't going anywhere conf wise.

ND loves the NBC media relationship to allow for them to get more media training for their ND alum in the field. They mention tirico mentoring. I wonder if that helps SU in any way since we are the media school.

The details in this thing are pretty good

 

[Scooch]

One other thought that rarely gets mentioned…. in terms of long term conference moves, the Big East hoops conference got too good too quickly.

Obviously it was amazing at the time for hoops fans. But even by 1984, just five years after launch, none of the football-playing schools could walk away from the juggernaut that was the BE. The Money, visibility, and marketing power was far too powerful to abandon.

If the BE had been fairly middling then it’s possible those schools would have felt more free to leave.

 

[elimunelson]

I don’t think the ND-NBC rights renewal will be all that difficult. ND is likely going to get a bit less than B1G/SEC money on an annual basis, but it’ll be a lot more than any other conference deal.

The thing about student access isn’t unique at all. For years ESPN has had a deal with the SEC that provides internships and training. The creation of the ACC Network also formally created on-the-job opportunities for students in on campus production centers. Most conference have something similar in their media deals. ND will get that wherever they go.

Oh I agree. It's a margin type benefit for a school like ND. But I think they REALLY love having the unique pathway to this network and I think NBC likes having their legacy admission angle too. Wasn't lost on me the writer made it clear the amt of NBC exec children who have gone to ND. I'm sure that's a "pile on the right" situation. Something that moves needles with execs when these negotiations come down to the final zeros. I think NBC and ND like to be in business together even if the number isn't the absolute highest.

At the end of the day ND is like a very profitable private business that doesn't need to go public. Why lose all the fringe benefits to achieve a final penny.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Good piece. I disagree with Delaney on a couple points.

1) As lacking in foresight as the rejection of Penn State was by the Big East was in 1984, I think PSU still leaves for the B1G eventually. I don’t think a PSU-BE marriage would have lasted, nor would it have stemmed the movements to come.

2) The NCAA’s ludicrous rule that required two, 6-team divisions to hold a football champ game was an incredibly meaningful dynamic for expansion. Arguably every conference expansion decision in the 90s and early 2000s was heavily influenced by that.

I did like his categorization of “strategic expansion” and “reactive expansion”. Generally speaking, most moves by the SEC and B1G fall into the former, and most everyone else’s fall into the latter.

I think the end game was inevitable. Sure short term things would have been very different but we would eventually get to where we are now.

The CCG rule was huge. Without it do we maybe see alliances instead of expansion? Pooled TV contracts and challenge games between conferences but still separate?

 

[WoadBlue]

He states what we have come to know, by allowing the basketball schools to veto this is the mess we have.

PSU in BE basketball would have slowed PSU's drive to be in a conference for football, but not killed it. The only thing that forced the BE to start a football division was PSU going BT, which led Cuse, BC, and Pitt to want some football security.

 

[baggerbob]

I think if the Big East had elevated Penn State hoops like it did for other schools, they might not have left.

The Big East with Penn State and Miami (plus Va Tech, SU, Pitt, WVU, BC and Rutgers) in football would have remained at the big boy table, and would have had access to any championship playoffs and bowl alignments.

And if they had formed the football League in 1985 could have also had Florida St. They didn't join the ACC until 1990. That would have been a great league,

 

[orangepassion]

SU mention
https://www.si.com/college/2023/07/13/big-12-media-days-brett-yormark-potential-expansion

 

[elimunelson]

SU mention
https://www.si.com/college/2023/07/13/big-12-media-days-brett-yormark-potential-expansion

If SU turns to the big 12 post ACC count me out. I’d rather we go to the patriot league.

Even Mike gundy is sounding the alarm of
Nonsense w the Oklahoma rivalry gonzo now. We are chiseling at the rivalries that people care about. The novelty of Syracuse playing NC State yearly is over for me. Not playing WVU or Rutgers bums me out because those are rivalries

 

[Moontan]

It's good publicity for Syracuse and the Big12 seems more interested in the northeast than the ACC does. Yormark should jump the shark and take UConn and UMass, at least they would be close enough together for the Big12 basketball and non-revenue sports to travel to and play both and save some money.

Something tells me that you're just looking for excuses to travel West.

 

[sutomcat]

Good piece. I disagree with Delaney on a couple points.

1) As lacking in foresight as the rejection of Penn State was by the Big East was in 1984, I think PSU still leaves for the B1G eventually. I don’t think a PSU-BE marriage would have lasted, nor would it have stemmed the movements to come.

2) The NCAA’s ludicrous rule that required two, 6-team divisions to hold a football champ game was an incredibly meaningful dynamic for expansion. Arguably every conference expansion decision in the 90s and early 2000s was heavily influenced by that.

I did like his categorization of “strategic expansion” and “reactive expansion”. Generally speaking, most moves by the SEC and B1G fall into the former, and most everyone else’s fall into the latter.

Agree.

I think Delaney is stressing the big mistake the BE made not inviting PSU to try and show how smart he was. He wants to go down in history as a savvy leader who had great foresight and vision.

He was just another empty suit that happened into a good move that was inevitable. Note that he doesn't talk much about the Rutgers and Maryland adds.

 

[Scooch]

Agree.

I think Delaney is stressing the big mistake the BE made not inviting PSU to try and show how smart he was. He wants to go down in history as a savvy leader who had great foresight and vision.

He was just another empty suit that happened into a good move that was inevitable. Note that he doesn't talk much about the Rutgers and Maryland adds.

For sure. I give him credit for adding PSU. It certainly was a shock at the time. But everything they did after that was pretty meh, expansion-wise. Nebraska? The made-for-TV schools? Yawn.

And to suggest the latter wasn’t anything more than a pure money grab is silly.

 

[Scooch]

And if they had formed the football League in 1985 could have also had Florida St. They didn't join the ACC until 1990. That would have been a great league,

The problem was that there was always going to be tension between the football playing schools and the hoops schools.

There’s some multiverse where a really skilled Commissioner could have bridged that divide. But it wouldn’t have been easy, and leagues like the ACC and B1G would have been sniffing around to poach schools regardless.

 

[Hoo's That]

{snip}

2) The NCAA’s ludicrous rule that required two, 6-team divisions to hold a football champ game was an incredibly meaningful dynamic for expansion. Arguably every conference expansion decision in the 90s and early 2000s was heavily influenced by that.

{snip}

The divisions rule was not designed for D-1. It was designed for a D-2 conference in PA so they could select a champion to get their bid to the NCAA playoffs. NCAA HQ thought that no D-1 conference would ever expand to 12. They admitted the SEC's move caught them completely by surprise. When the SEC championship game made tons of cash, everybody and their uncle had to have one. Had the wording of the rule been such that only conferences participating in NCAA football playoffs could have a championship game, the expansion frenzy might not have taken place.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I don't think the B12 will add anyone anytime soon, despite what B12'Anon claims.

The B12 TV contract runs through the 2030 FB season and 2031 BBall season. I get wanting to deliver a blow to your competition (P10), but the B12 won't see any reward for doing so until it is time to renegotiate their next contract. So why act now even if a P10 team is willing to jump? Aren't they better off waiting 5 years? It is not like the P10 team won't be available later.

As to the G5 schools, I doubt that ESPN/FOX would be willing to pay a full share for any of those teams. But even if a full share were possible, why act now vs 5 years from now? That G5 team is not going anywhere.

I suppose you could make an argument adding a G5 school now will allow that team to grow so that by the time the renegotiation happens, the G5 team is a respectable P5 team. But that could also backfire should said G5 team be the B12 doormat. Diluting the product will not help your next contract.

Also with a full share you could give that G5 team just $18M (which is better than they currently get), and split the remaining $12M between the existing teams. So everyone gets $1M more. But is that really worth it?

Also the B12 just added 4 new schools. Isn't it better to integrate those schools before adding more?


I think this is all propaganda to make the B12 look desirable.