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

[Scooch]

So Scooch, if you were in charge what would you do to add value to the conference?

Well since you asked…

I would have *tried* to convince the ACC schools many years ago that there was value in being a very large, eastern seaboard league.

I would have added UConn, Rutgers, WVU, and I would have kept Maryland in the fold. Maybe even invite Nova and tell them to upgrade football.

The problem with ALL the conferences 15-20 years ago was that they thought small and reactively.

Assuming that failed because people wouldn’t have seen my brilliant vision…. I would have made every play imaginable a few years ago to merge the ACC and PAC 12. I would have told the P12 schools to fold their dumb TV network to ESPN and let the pros handle it.

Assuming that failed because more people wouldn’t have seen my incredibly brilliant vision…

I’d start looking to sell the ACC to the SEC.

Honestly there really aren’t great options left.

 

[Orangezoo]

Much respect to Woad but I tend to agree. It is not a coincidence that the ACC teams that have the best chance of getting into the B1G are the obstructionists.

The theory that they oppose any expansion because it makes it harder to dissolve the conference makes the most sense to me.

It would be great if a reputable journalist could confirm how many votes are required to dissolve the conference. That is I think, a key piece of information that anyone who follows an ACC program would appreciate getting confirmed. Yes, that is a hint…..

And what's sad is that all these supposedly smart people playing this little game are in denial of just how destructive sabotaging the future of the ACC is. Effectively destroying the two coastal conferences for 3 major conferences resulting in a massive drop off in fan interest and engagement and far less money than their fantastical delusions of grandeur.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

How can anyone want these schools with zero fanbases and want to torture our athletes with trips to the Bay area. Would just reek of desperation and completely justify the top of the ACC doing whatever they can to leave for the SEC or Big Ten. The conference is fine we haven't lost a single member and have stayed out of the stupidity. Cal and Stanford belong in the Mountain West they have very little local support and their alums aren't sports fans both are worse than BC.

 

[Willy75]

Much respect to Woad but I tend to agree. It is not a coincidence that the ACC teams that have the best chance of getting into the B1G are the obstructionists.

The theory that they oppose any expansion because it makes it harder to dissolve the conference makes the most sense to me.

It would be great if a reputable journalist could confirm how many votes are required to dissolve the conference. That is I think, a key piece of information that anyone who follows an ACC program would appreciate getting confirmed. Yes, that is a hint…..

The ACC is an unincorporated not for profit association (see the recitals to the GOR agreement), not a corporation. There is nothing in the by-laws about the number of votes required to dissolve the conference/association, the most likely reason being that legally there is no entity to dissolve. Members just come and go (the by-laws do have the voting requirements for those). In the case of leaving the departing school is left with the GOR.
Some Clemson types got excited because NC has a statutory provision that 50% of directors can dissolve a not for profit corporation (not unincorporated association). That doesn’t apply to the ACC as there is to my knowledge no analogous provision for an unincorporated association .
So again the most plausible answer is that the ACC isn’t something that can be dissolved.

 

[Sherman20]

If you are referring to teams they didn't want the travel, that was still during the phase when the PAC could remain together as a conference. That notion persisted until the media deal number was released and it was at that point the conference came unglued. Colorado immediatly bolted and Yormark put the press on OU and UW. The B1G shut that down as they were always going to get them and wouldn't let the Big 12 steal them. That left 5 desirable schools. Arizona was already all but in the Big 12 That's the point that the ACC could have made a play for ASU amd Utah to come along with Calford. I mean Utah is a legitimate power program and the 2 time defending Pac 12 champion. That would have been adding strength to the conference.

It was the ACC talking to Washington and Oregon, not the Big 12. The Big 12 knew that those two schools wanted nothing to do with them.

 

[Sherman20]

No, the ACC couldn’t have done that because Oregon and Washington DIDNT WANT TO JOIN THE ACC.

Read that sentence again. Now again. One more time. Then again.

Maybe it’ll sink in eventually.

Saving PAC 10 was their first choice. If it fell apart, they were talking to both the Big 10 and the ACC as fallback options.

 

[rocklloyd]

So, you’re saying that Cal can get right back in this thing?

Only if Crabbe gets hot

 

[Chris02M]

 

[tep624]

The ACC is an unincorporated not for profit association (see the recitals to the GOR agreement), not a corporation. There is nothing in the by-laws about the number of votes required to dissolve the conference/association, the most likely reason being that legally there is no entity to dissolve. Members just come and go (the by-laws do have the voting requirements for those). In the case of leaving the departing school is left with the GOR.
Some Clemson types got excited because NC has a statutory provision that 50% of directors can dissolve a not for profit corporation (not unincorporated association). That doesn’t apply to the ACC as there is to my knowledge no analogous provision for an unincorporated association .
So again the most plausible answer is that the ACC isn’t something that can be dissolved.

Yep and the media rights stay with the conference/ESPN regardless. It’s punch a hole in the GOR or bust.

 

[Sherman20]

Again I ask, what does adding those schools gain?

That’s what naysayers brayed when the Big 12 added Central Florida, Houston, Cincinnati and BYU. But their skepticism was unfounded. And those reinforcements undoubtedly helped strengthen the Big 12 and did continued aggressive expansion.

 

[tep624]

How can anyone want these schools with zero fanbases and want to torture our athletes with trips to the Bay area. Would just reek of desperation and completely justify the top of the ACC doing whatever they can to leave for the SEC or Big Ten. The conference is fine we haven't lost a single member and have stayed out of the stupidity. Cal and Stanford belong in the Mountain West they have very little local support and their alums aren't sports fans both are worse than BC.

Travel isn’t really an issue because divisions and centralized Olympic Sport meets / Travel partners solve a lot of that. It may be a short term issue as the ACC works out their national strategy but that’s a minor growing pain in the grand scheme of things.

And the Bay Area just lost the Raiders and the Athletics so there is an opportunity there to develop and market a product that is appealing to the public at large. And the Bay Area is a top 10 media market.

And the top of the ACC is leaving for the SEC and B1G irrespective of what happens. The GOR is the only thing holding this together right now and if 7 teams actively looking for a way out of it doesn’t tell you the conference as it’s currently structured is in trouble then you’re just in denial Frankie. So whether it “reeks of desperation” or not is irrelevant. Matter of fact the ACC should be desperate because they’ve put themselves in a position, fairly or not, that has them behind the 8 ball when the conference eventually loses the top 4-5 teams on or before 2036.

 

[pokercuse08]

The conference is fine we haven't lost a single member and have stayed out of the stupidity.

FSU and Clemson are gone at the first opportunity and everyone knows it. UNC and probably UVA aren't far behind. But your statement was actually true about the Pac-12 like a year ago, and look at it now.

How can anyone want these schools with zero fanbases and want to torture our athletes with trips to the Bay area.

I wouldn't say Stanford has zero fanbase, I don't think the people involved in the ACC and Stanford/Cal are dumb enough to make non-revenue sports travel like crazy, and I think most of our athletes would enjoy an *occasional* trip to the Bay Area. Long term the model you'd be working towards would be to have a Western division and two eastern divisions, or possibly four divisions, and mostly play teams within your geographic area with one or two games against the far away schools.

 

[tep624]

I do appreciate the reply.

As for the P12 let me ask… short of them adding Texas and Oklahoma like they wanted to a decade ago, what would have kept USC and UCLA from flaking out for the B1G?

I just think a lot of people believe in this equation:

Do something + ??? = long term stability.

I don’t believe in that. But I could be totally wrong.

Thanks and to be clear I don’t agree with just doing anything. Just doing anything would be adding Oregon St,, Charlotte and Temple or something like that.

I do think there are opportunities to develop programs and markets like Las Vegas, San Diego and the Bay Area. And I think SMU is an intriguing program. But there has to be some level of long term vision associated with it. If it’s simply throwing crap at the wall then I agree it is desperate and will probably end up just failing in the long run anyway. But I do believe there are quality programs out there that can be added that the ACC can help to develop over the next 5 years that can be used to springboard recruitment of the Big 12 programs of highest value when the time comes. I don’t see the pitch to SW and MW Big 12 programs of an Altantic coast based conference that just lost FSU, Clemson, NC, etc. The Big 12 would arguably be the more stable conference at that point and would probably just take what they want from the ACC leftovers rather than the other way around.

 

[pokercuse08]

And the top of the ACC is leaving for the SEC and B1G irrespective of what happens. The GOR is the only thing holding this together right now and if 7 teams actively looking for a way out of it doesn’t tell you the conference as it’s currently structured is in trouble then you’re just in denial Frankie. So whether it “reeks of desperation” or not is irrelevant. Matter of fact the ACC should be desperate because they’ve put themselves in a position, fairly or not, that has them behind the 8 ball when the conference eventually loses the top 4-5 teams on or before 2036.

I keep thinking about this and it feels like there could be a deal to be made here. It's inevitable to lose FSU and Clemson, and probably a couple others. They don't want to help the conference add teams because they don't want to get stuck there longer. The conference needs to add teams because it's going to lose them.

What the ACC really needs is to hold onto those teams for long enough to secure itself as the third strongest conference, which doesn't have to take 10+ years. They need to keep those teams while they add the likes of Stanford, SMU, ???, ???, and give those schools a chance to throw absurd amounts of money at their football programs to build them up.

If the ACC threw FSU and Clemson a bone and knocked a few years off their exit, I'd have to think they would be a lot more amenable to voting yes on expansion. Whether or not there's a sweet spot that works for everyone is the question. It's even possible you could cut a deal with the B1G and SEC for the third seat at the playoff table when the dust settles, and in exchange they can pick off the ACC schools they want sooner. A smaller seat than those two super conferences, but a bigger seat than the also-rans.

 

[pokercuse08]

I do think there are opportunities to develop programs and markets like Las Vegas, San Diego and the Bay Area. And I think SMU is an intriguing program. But there has to be some level of long term vision associated with it.

One thing I'd be doing if I were the ACC, the Big 12, or even just a school that doesn't have an invite lined up, is paying consultants with a background in media deals, private equity, mergers and acquisitions, and game theory. I'd put them in a room together and say game this out for us, what would you do if you were the B1G or the SEC? What would you be hoping we didn't do if you were those two? What would you do if you were the SEC? And at a school level perspective, what do we need to do to maximize our chances of landing in one of those conferences or making our conference the #3 spot and protecting access to the playoff?

I think the Big 12 has done this to some extent, given their consideration of trying to lock down as many basketball powerhouses as possible to say, "If you try to have a basketball national championship tournament without us, it'll be a joke and everyone will know it." As a poker player, that struck me as being a pretty good game theory oriented defensive response. It also struck me as protecting some semblance of future leverage. If the Big 12 pulls that off and the B1G/SEC try to steal away and create their own March Madness, they need the Big 12 - is that worth a seat at the football playoff table? Maybe!

Meanwhile the ACC seems to be reactive instead of proactive.

 

[tep624]

I keep thinking about this and it feels like there could be a deal to be made here. It's inevitable to lose FSU and Clemson, and probably a couple others. They don't want to help the conference add teams because they don't want to get stuck there longer. The conference needs to add teams because it's going to lose them.

What the ACC really needs is to hold onto those teams for long enough to secure itself as the third strongest conference, which doesn't have to take 10+ years. They need to keep those teams while they add the likes of Stanford, SMU, ???, ???, and give those schools a chance to throw absurd amounts of money at their football programs to build them up.

If the ACC threw FSU and Clemson a bone and knocked a few years off their exit, I'd have to think they would be a lot more amenable to voting yes on expansion. Whether or not there's a sweet spot that works for everyone is the question. It's even possible you could cut a deal with the B1G and SEC for the third seat at the playoff table when the dust settles, and in exchange they can pick off the ACC schools they want sooner. A smaller seat than those two super conferences, but a bigger seat than the also-rans.

People can call me crazy and I don’t care, but if it were me I’d add Stanford, Cal, San Diego St, UNLV and SMU tomorrow as a 5 team Western Division.

Develop those programs / markets over the next 5 years and use it as a springboard to target the best Big 12 programs.

 

[dasher]

They're going to get into either the B1G or the SEC, and they probably already have a wink wink nod nod offer from one or both. They don't want to water down their voting power in the ACC, they want to exit at their first opportunity. They're only a little behind FSU and Clemson in the pecking order to get to a big boy conference.

They are ahead of FSU.

 

[Toga]

Have been on the road today. Trying to catch up. Am I right that the King of the Conference wants to blow it up at the earliest opportunity or nah?

 

[dasher]

People can call me crazy and I don’t care, but if it were me I’d add Stanford, Cal, San Diego St, UNLV and SMU tomorrow as a 5 team Western Division.

I agree. You are crazy. Stanford and Cal are one thing. The others are not.

 

[pokercuse08]

They are ahead of FSU.

I'd probably concede that they're ahead of FSU in certainty that they get into a big conference, but probably not in the actual order it goes down.

 

[pokercuse08]

People can call me crazy and I don’t care, but if it were me I’d add Stanford, Cal, San Diego St, UNLV and SMU tomorrow as a 5 team Western Division.

Develop those programs / markets over the next 5 years and use it as a springboard to target the best Big 12 programs.

I don't think you're crazy, and I do think there's some merit to trying to develop those markets and programs with the better access to the playoff and more money flowing through them (given that they'd know how critical the opportunity was).

That said, my cut off would be SMU. I would study SDSU and UNLV more before offering them. They're still going to be there in three, five, seven, 10 years. They're not getting into the bigger leagues and they're not a sure thing to develop their programs to the level needed, they're far from a certainty.

To me planting a flag out west is important, keeping Stanford alive and well as a program is important to the western strategy, and SMU has a ton of potential and letting them start now has a lot of value. In five years I'm not sure SDSU and UNLV will be the right choice, and we don't have to make it today, so we might as well not.

The fact that Stanford, SMU, and possibly Cal are willing to pay their own way for a while also makes a huge difference here IMO and I can only assume that's not an option for UNLV and SDSU. Being creative with that money could be the difference in eventually losing four to 10 schools from the current conference or perhaps managing to stop the bleeding at two more. Perhaps finding a way to juice the payouts for the most successful programs, including hoops to a higher degree than anyone else will, can ultimately give UNC and UVA something to reconsider.

I do think UNC and UVA would settle for slightly less money to stay in the ACC because of the history, cultural fit, and power they have within the conference (UNC in particular). Like if it's $100M a year vs. $60M a year, sayonara. But if it's $100M a year vs. $90M a year, maybe they stay. Where the line is, I don't know, but I would guess around 85%.

 

[tep624]

I agree. You are crazy. Stanford and Cal are one thing. The others are not.

2 teams in California out on an island is not a strategy. I call that crazy.

 

[pokercuse08]

2 teams in California out on an island is not a strategy. I call that crazy.

Two teams in California on an island forever is crazy. For a couple years, with a plan in place, it's a strategy.

As soon as the B1G added UCLA and USC there was a lot of talk it was crazy, but it was obvious that was their first West Coast move and some combination including Oregon was next to fall. This would be a similar situation for the ACC.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

FSU and Clemson are gone at the first opportunity and everyone knows it. UNC and probably UVA aren't far behind. But your statement was actually true about the Pac-12 like a year ago, and look at it now.

I wouldn't say Stanford has zero fanbase, I don't think the people involved in the ACC and Stanford/Cal are dumb enough to make non-revenue sports travel like crazy, and I think most of our athletes would enjoy an *occasional* trip to the Bay Area. Long term the model you'd be working towards would be to have a Western division and two eastern divisions, or possibly four divisions, and mostly play teams within your geographic area with one or two games against the far away schools.

Cal had no fans against us in basketball second round 2013 in their back yard.

There’s nothing positive about playing them and they’ll have even less fans when they leave the P12.

We can always add non attractive programs when the time comes and should have better options or leave ourselves. I don’t think it’s a bad thing if FSU and Clemson leave to be road kill and we end up with a conference we can win every year.

 

[Stern]

Jason Cole is a long time NFL reporter for the Miami Herald and YAHOO Sports as well as a voter for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Here is what he is saying today