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

[HRE Otto IV]

I was a little surprised by your comment that the B1G lacks brands and, as a result, may want to FSU. How could a league that has Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, and Oregon lack brands? But before I questioned you post with my subjective thoughts on brands, I decided to see what the internet had to say and I found out it is still largely subjective and mostly contain articles from non-traditional media websites.

I did see this ranking from 2019 from the Wall Street Journal. Based on its methodologies, FSU, at 27, would be the 12th largest brand out of the (soon to be) B1G's 18 teams (SU was ranked 57). The SEC is far and away the winner in this ranking with seven of its teams or soon to be teams in the top 10. The highest ACC team was Clemson at 26 and the highest team in the new XII was Arizona State at 25.

As for the teams being discussed as expansion candidates, Stanford (34) and Cal (40) would be the fourth and sixth most valuable team in the ACC respectively and SMU (74) would be last.

Honestly, I am not sure I buy into some of the placement of certain teams and I assume it is partially based on revenue, so skews SEC and B1G teams higher, but it is a starting point.

The B18 has great FB brands at the top but they have too many middling and small FB programs. So adding another team to the top will help a lot more than in the SEC where there are a lot more brands.

I would say that the SEC has 9 out of 16 teams (over 50%) that are big time programs, and the B18 has 8 out of 18 teams (under 50%). Also IMO the bottom of the B18 is a lot weaker than the SEC so they need more at the top to carry that dead weight. Outside of Vandy there really isn't dead weight in the SEC.

 

[Jake]

So it looks like Cal is also willing to play for not pay for a while, so each current ACC school can expect something in the neighborhood of a 7-8 million increase in annual revenue. That is a substantial bump.

Again, some would go to cover additional travel costs but for olympic sports, we are probably talking about one extra extended road trip to stop at the 3 additions. Can’t be that much. They would surely clear over 5 million each year in extra money. Hard to turn that down.

One thought. Adding 3 schools gives the ACC 17 schools for football, 18 for everything else. Not good to have an odd number of teams ina conference that plays football. It means someone can’t play a conference game during the conference season every week.

This can be done by scheduling OOC games through the season (most would probably be against ND). Or by spreading byes for ACC schools through a couple of months of class Terence okay. Neither is ideal.

The more I think about it though, the more comfortable I am with it given ND can serve as the de facto 18th football conference team 5 weeks of the season (hopefully 6). That mitigates the issue some.

Assuming these three get added today, still wouldn’t be shocked to see the ACC seriously consider adding one more school to make scheduling easier. If they do, thinking it would be San Diego State, Tulane or UConn.
thought I saw UConn rumored to offer to forgo revenue for 5 to 7 years as well. Guessing the others would too.

So one more team probably means more money still to current ACC members. That would get them in the range of 10-12 million in extra revenue per school per season.

Probably not going to happen but something to think about….

I absolutely think UConn is the play here. I think they are a definite target of the big 12, and I’d like to keep that conference out of the east coast.

 

[sutomcat]

I absolutely think UConn is the play here. I think they are a definite target of the big 12, and I’d like to keep that conference out of the east coast.

Yes, I think losing Cincy and UCF, schools the ACC thought would always be there, might have helped drive them to be more proactive now.

Might. Talk is cheap. Let’s see if the ACC is serious about competing with the B12 and long term survival.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

For others in this world, would the ACC schools be able to have some type of exclusive academic/research exchange or joint projects with Cal and Stanford? That brings the schools tremendous value for their true mission.
Also, as some have mentioned, Stanford is the best sports program in the country, year in and year out. The ACC teams upgrading their Olympic and Women’s sports to compete with Stanford would be great. Those type of games games are great for satisfying streaming needs.

 

[hoopsupstate]

Good sports programs? What programs are available that will move the needle with ESPN?

I’m going to say it again. Women’s basketball is growing faster than any other sport. If conferences are looking for additional programming, imagine adding Stanford and UCONN’s women’s basketball to an already loaded ACC basketball conference? Adding California, Texas and an additional northeast presence, can’t hurt ACCN subscriptions.

 

[MikeSU02]

I absolutely think UConn is the play here. I think they are a definite target of the big 12, and I’d like to keep that conference out of the east coast.

Fine with them pending we get Stanford, Cal and SMU first.

 

[CousCuse]

I absolutely think UConn is the play here. I think they are a definite target of the big 12, and I’d like to keep that conference out of the east coast.

BC and SU would both get a strong rivalry in basketball and football. It would energize the northern flank of the ACC. Hope the people in the south can get their brain wrapped around this.

 

[721Comstock]

Fine with them pending we get Stanford, Cal and SMU first.

StanCal is the play.

Worry about filler after that gets done.

Neither one of those is additive, in a per-school revenue sense.
Just 2 more mouths to feed.

 

[orangefog]

Charlotte in case you haven't noticed is filled with East coast transplants.

I went to tiny New York Mills High School. And, I know no less than four hundred million people from NYM that have moved to the Charlotte area.

 

[djorange1989]

What are the great programs/brands that make the Big 12 so desirable over the ACC? Texas and Oklahoma leave after this coming season, and those were the golden gooses.

It is all perception right now, the Big 12 is united with teams on generally equal footing in a conference that can do a new deal much sooner than the ACC, a conference filled with disgruntled “haves” who can’t do a new deal until 2036. The ACC is a better football conference, but that is not the most important thing here, dumb though that sounds

 

[djorange1989]

You and others keep making the mistake in assuming that the ACC is trying to catch up to the Big 10 and SEC in TV revenue. That’s never ever gonna happen—unless ND miraculously walks through that door. We can hopefully close the gap a bit, but even that might be difficult. The fight right now is about outflanking the Big 12 as the third strongest/highest revenue conference, so we’re ready and have reinforcements for the next round of realignment in 2030-35.

This

 

[DocFlanders]

What time is said vote today?

 

[PhatOrange]

Good sports programs? What programs are available that will move the needle with ESPN?

None that’s why you don’t waste a spot on SMU. Wait until the big12 gor expires .

 

[Chris02M]

This

or the tv media right bubble bursts

 

[BlazeOrange]

Too many variables to contemplate a long-term plan. Instead look at Stages:

Stage 1 (2020s) - add the western trio and maybe a 4th on the cheap. Take a few years to evaluate the travel issues, etc. Stage ends around the time the B12 contract expires, which is coincidentally when the GOR may become affordable for some schools to break.

Stage 2 (early 2030s) - either replace schools that leave, expand, or stay pat. We'll have an established western routine that can be filled in with B12 schools if we can offer a better deal, even if only for a few years.

Stage 3 (mid 2030s) - time to renew the GOR or disband the conference. Hard to predict which way it goes. Will the scene be Big 2 or bust/breakaway from NCAA? Or will there be a place for a relevant #3? If so, look at a merge of whatever is left of ACC/B12 after they get picked over by the goliaths.

 

[CuseCactus]

I'd argue that - long term - Cal and Stanford bring more than Oregon/Wash do to the Big 18. Cal has 450,000 alumni - all over the country. Admittedly, many or most may not care about athletics. But it's a bigger alumni pool than UNC and a far bigger pool than say, UVA.

The Bay Area is also a massive market. Maybe 4th largest in the country?

Finally - Stanford isn't gonna always be mediocre in hoops/football. They literally have unlimited resources - and a lot of their alums do care about doing well in sports - it's an ego thing. They've had Harbaugh, Bill Walsh, etc. as their FB coach.

Truly hoping this happens. Ambivalent about SMU - happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Orangefan1]

I'd argue that - long term - Cal and Stanford bring more than Oregon/Wash do to the Big 18. Cal has 450,000 alumni - all over the country. Admittedly, many or most may not care about athletics. But it's a bigger alumni pool than UNC and a far bigger pool than say, UVA.

The Bay Area is also a massive market. Maybe 4th largest in the country?

Finally - Stanford isn't gonna always be mediocre in hoops/football. They literally have unlimited resources - and a lot of their alums do care about doing well in sports - it's an ego thing. They've had Harbaugh, Bill Walsh, etc. as their FB coach.

Truly hoping this happens. Ambivalent about SMU - happy to be proven wrong.

Stanford and SMU will replace Clemson and or Florida State in the long run I feel. They will be 8-5 every year and these other teams will be in better shape

 

[Toga]

I would not offer UConn until they have a definitive offer from the B12 and even then I probably wait to decide until around 2030.

 

[orangecuse]

What’s with the SMU fascination? Yuk

It is, let's just say, interesting for sure. Yes, SMU is in a great market (Dallas/Fort Worth) but so is Boston College. And, just like its small private counterpart BC, SMU is also in a broader pro sports town first and foremost with the Cowboys, Mavericks, Stars and Rangers. Therefore, it doesn't and won't capture that market, etc.

Additionally, SMU is currently ranked 72nd in the latest academic US News & World Report rankings, well behind the likes of BC at 36. At 72, SMU's academic standing is equivalent to NCST's 72nd ranking and Clemson's at 77.

 

[shantydaze]

Pure desperation.

If the ACC wanted to stoop this low, they would have considered UCF who is in their backyard and far enough from Miami and Tallahassee to where the two rejecting the idea would be ludicrous.

Many of the arguments I have seen for the inclusion of SMU remind me of the B1G's justification for adding Rutgers. The only unique argument I have seen is that SMU's alumni are flush with cash. Other than this allowing SMU to forgo conference distributions and SU getting a larger share, I do not see how this benefits us or the rest of the ACC.

 

[JrodCuse]

In the game of conference chess, adding these teams is a smart move. I really hope they’re able to make it happen and position the league to be in a potential position of power in about 8-10 years.

 

[djorange1989]

or the tv media right bubble bursts

That’s always possible too, but the way things are trending with viewership habits, live sports, particularly football, will continue to be more and more valuable to advertisers, and in turn the networks/streaming services

 

[djorange1989]

In the game of conference chess, adding these teams is a smart move. I really hope they’re able to make it happen and position the league to be in a potential position of power in about 8-10 years.

Me too, I just worry that it will get voted down for the absolute worst/wrong reason(weaken and destroy the conference so us “haves”can get out easier). Sabotage at its finest

 

[CuseCactus]

Many of the arguments I have seen for the inclusion of SMU remind me of the B1G's justification for adding Rutgers. The only unique argument I have seen is that SMU's alumni are flush with cash. Other than this allowing SMU to forgo conference distributions and SU getting a larger share, I do not see how this benefits us or the rest of the ACC.

Well, as funny as it may sound, maybe their ultra rich, mouth-breathing alums will go all Pony Express again and throw millions at the players. They love me some football down there.

And now it doesn't matter like in the '80's - there is no Death Penalty issue. Just throw money at the best players. If I was 18, broke and offered a million a year to go to a rich kids' country club school in Dallas - I'd take it.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Too many variables to contemplate a long-term plan. Instead look at Stages:

Stage 1 (2020s) - add the western trio and maybe a 4th on the cheap. Take a few years to evaluate the travel issues, etc. Stage ends around the time the B12 contract expires, which is coincidentally when the GOR may become affordable for some schools to break.

Stage 2 (early 2030s) - either replace schools that leave, expand, or stay pat. We'll have an established western routine that can be filled in with B12 schools if we can offer a better deal, even if only for a few years.

Stage 3 (mid 2030s) - time to renew the GOR or disband the conference. Hard to predict which way it goes. Will the scene be Big 2 or bust/breakaway from NCAA? Or will there be a place for a relevant #3? If so, look at a merge of whatever is left of ACC/B12 after they get picked over by the goliaths.

I think the plan should be add Stanford, Cal, SMU now (no UConn). When the B12 gets P12'd try to get three B12s to get to 20. Then when the ACC teams leave fill up with the best leftovers.