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

[shantydaze]

I believe many of these schools will regret these moves eventually, especially once the TV bubble bursts. They’re all losing their identities, historic rivalries and stature as the leaders/big dogs of large regional leagues (see: Texas, Texas A&M, USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon etc.)

I am not so sure, especially the new SEC schools, which still has some geographic regionality. Texas keeps Oklahoma and brings back historic rivalries with aTm and Arkansas. I do not think Texas will miss playing the other XII schools. Oklahoma may be a little different as the only old Big 8 school in the SEC is Missouri. I am not sure how OU cares though as the only Big 8 team in the XII South with Oklahoma was Oklahoma State so, since 1996, those old rivalries might have largely died on the vine.

The Pac division of the B1G is a different story.

 

[MSOrange]

 

[orlandoorange]

Interesting read - Charter’s dispute with ESPN adds potential layer of uncertainty to college sports earnings

 

[atom58]

This is a bit off topic but does concern the ACC in general:

'It is insane' — How the ACC's contentious, back-and-forth expansion deal ultimately got done

The ACC's expansion saga finally comes to a close with the addition of Stanford, Cal and SMU. Here's an inside look at how it all went down.

sports.yahoo.com

I found it to be a very interesting look behind the scenes of the recent expansion. Forgive me if it was already posted here in the past.

Also there is this AP view of it too:

ACC becomes latest super conference, expanding cross-country by adding Stanford, Cal and SMU

The Atlantic Coast Conference has voted to add Stanford, California and SMU next year. The move provides a landing spot for two more schools from the disintegrating Pac-12 and creates a fourth super conference in major college sports.

apnews.com

I guess the famous "Airplane Conference" which was proposed in 1959, a year dear to your heart, is finally here.

Superconference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Good luck to your team playing against that Big 10 (11), (14), (16), (18) team!

 

[atom58]

Here's the thing. No one knows which direction this whole thing is going. A hundred unexpected or variations of expected could happen in the next decade. Dollars could tighten up, the SEC as a result could hold on expanding, political interests could influence, it could be 120 degrees Fahrenheit down south every day in a decade and makes it impossible to play...who knows? In the meantime we have a GOR that covers Syracuse on one side and by adding teams the ACC protects itself on the other side. It will be interesting to see if the new comers get voting rights in the ACC and how that shakes out for future votes on matters.

SMU gets full voting rights on July 1, 2024 and Cal-Berkeley (better academic school than UCLA) and Stanford are said to do the same on August 2 (?), 2024 - not sure why they enter a little later, must be a Pac12 thing. So all three of them will get to fully vote. ND also has a full vote though a part time member in FB. I understand their support of Stanford's application was tremendous. Read into that what you will. I really think all 3 of them will automatically be in the middle of the FB pack and therefore help this conference.

 

[atom58]

Welcome to Stanford, Cal and SMU. It isn’t a great solution but it was the best remaining option and I am glad the ACC took it.

Want to talk about scheduling a bit. With 18 schools for basketball, the ACC finally gets away from that odd number of schools and the problem of 1 ACC team having the weekind off each week during conference play. That is nice. Probably will keep the existing scheduling model and go from 20 to 22 basketball games in conference. Bad news for schools that like to play at Syracuse OOC to make some coin.

For football, there are of course 17 schools in the league. The easiest option seems to be to have 2 rivals each team plays every year. That leaves 14 other schools. Play 7 one year and the other the next year.

This brings the ACC to 9 conference games, which is controversial. But it is by far the best way to retain key rivalries and play everyone regularly. My guess is that all the conferences end up having to do this and college football expands to a 13 game regular season to allow some cupcake games against FCS teams and retention of traditional annual OOC games.

The B1G didn’t do this, which given how incompetent they have been at making decisions, makes me confident this is the way to go.

The ACC could also go with 4 annual rivals and then rotate through the 12 schools not played annually by playing 4 each year. So you play everyone in the conference at least once every 3 years.

That solution only requires 8 conference games a year and will probably by chosen based on that. But no one is going to want to be a rival for Stanford, Cal and SMU except for Stanford, Cal and SMU.

ND will want to play Stanford yearly. I think they do that now but they are a PT member with 5 games in rotation. The conference could get them to do this though as a 6th game - just thinking.

 

[atom58]

SMU telling the ACC to keep their money might be the biggest baller move in college sports history. Talk that cash talk, oil fellas.

What I have read is that SMU will still get about $9 million based on bowl games, CFB playoff, and NCAA BB. That is actually more than they were getting from the AAC I read. They won't get the TV network $$ (Tier 1?) which was about $39 million last time. I guess Stanford and Cal will get the same + 30% of $40 million + so maybe none of them will be hurting for a while. None of the other ACC teams will despite what any of them says.

 

[atom58]

Agree about the DePaul feel but we didn’t miss the boat on the PAC 12. The four schools that went Big 10 would never have chosen the ACC, Colorado wanted the Big 12 badly. Utah and the Arizona schools did not want to leave the PAC 12 at all but had to after Clueless George presented the garbage TV deal. Once that happened, why would those three schools pick the ACC over the Big 12? Both have similar revenue streams but the Big 12 isn’t locked in to their deal for nearly as long and the geography/travel makes way more sense. If someone wants to argue that the ACC should have gone after Cincy/UCF/Houston/BYU, that is a different story, we could have gotten them(maybe not BYU but the other 3 for sure)

Yes, and the B10 (18) had their eyes on Stanford and Cal but just not now. In that sense, the ACC "stole a march on them" and something similar may have happened when they admitted Pitt and SU back in 2011. It was pre-emption, and to their credit the ACC did try to prevent the destruction of the Pac12 according to an SI article I read - it was some sort of scheduling arrangement ++ to help them and even was mentioned in their internal meeting. We did not stab them in the back as the others did.

 

[atom58]

They're a legend in their own minds. Notoriously boorish and arrogant here in Charlotte. At least Clemson and even UNC handled this w/ a smidgen of class. FSU still acts like Bobby Bowden is gonna walk through that door. Typical, wacky Floridian attitudes.

Sounds like they are trying to imitate Texas which messed up every conference they have been in, the SWC and the Big12 I have heard. That Longhorn Network should have become a Big12 network. We'll see what they do in or to the SEC. Oh, and that Alabama team had trouble with USF so they may not be any good. UCF has 72,000 students and will be the big dog in Fla soon IMO. They beat UF in a bowl game and FUS (fuss, ha ha ha!) in a regular season game when BB was the coach.

 

[WoadBlue]

Yes, and the B10 (18) had their eyes on Stanford and Cal but just not now. In that sense, the ACC "stole a march on them" and something similar may have happened when they admitted Pitt and SU back in 2011. It was pre-emption, and to their credit the ACC did try to prevent the destruction of the Pac12 according to an SI article I read - it was some sort of scheduling arrangement ++ to help them and even was mentioned in their internal meeting. We did not stab them in the back as the others did.

The ACC had two plans for the Pac. One ws that all encompassing OOC scheduling. The other, based on the fact that the BT and Fox and ESPN seemed happy to kill the Pac, was to add as many as 6 Pac teams. The BT and Fox then offered Washington and Oregon,and supposedly Washington did not want to even consider the ACC, and Oregon lamely followed Washington. IN sports terms, Oregon with all that Nike money would have been better off going ACC with Stanford and Cal.

 

[PhatOrange]

70 mill more a year will more than make up for it.

I wonder how they’ll recruit down the road.

 

[SU68]

Sounds like they are trying to imitate Texas which messed up every conference they have been in, the SWC and the Big12 I have heard. That Longhorn Network should have become a Big12 network. We'll see what they do in or to the SEC. Oh, and that Alabama team had trouble with USF so they may not be any good. UCF has 72,000 students and will be the big dog in Fla soon IMO. They beat UF in a bowl game and FUS (fuss, ha ha ha!) in a regular season game when BB was the coach.

Size doesn't matter. It's how you use it.

 

[Hoo's That]

SMU gets full voting rights on July 1, 2024 and Cal-Berkeley (better academic school than UCLA) and Stanford are said to do the same on August 2 (?), 2024 - not sure why they enter a little later, must be a Pac12 thing. So all three of them will get to fully vote. ND also has a full vote though a part time member in FB. I understand their support of Stanford's application was tremendous. Read into that what you will. I really think all 3 of them will automatically be in the middle of the FB pack and therefore help this conference.

Expiration date of Pac-12 GoR.

SMU probably will start out in the middle of the pack but will be moving up toward the top pretty quickly. Their membership in a power conference can only help when it comes to persuading recruits. Look across the Metroplex at TCU for a model of what can happen. Will it happen? No one knows ATT.

 

[Hoo's That]

ND will want to play Stanford yearly. I think they do that now but they are a PT member with 5 games in rotation. The conference could get them to do this though as a 6th game - just thinking.

That's what probably will happen. Stanford won't be in the rotation everyone else is in and their game won't count toward ND's annual "obligation".

 

[Sherman20]

This is a bit off topic but does concern the ACC in general:

'It is insane' — How the ACC's contentious, back-and-forth expansion deal ultimately got done

The ACC's expansion saga finally comes to a close with the addition of Stanford, Cal and SMU. Here's an inside look at how it all went down.

sports.yahoo.com

I found it to be a very interesting look behind the scenes of the recent expansion. Forgive me if it was already posted here in the past.

Also there is this AP view of it too:

ACC becomes latest super conference, expanding cross-country by adding Stanford, Cal and SMU

The Atlantic Coast Conference has voted to add Stanford, California and SMU next year. The move provides a landing spot for two more schools from the disintegrating Pac-12 and creates a fourth super conference in major college sports.

apnews.com

I guess the famous "Airplane Conference" which was proposed in 1959, a year dear to your heart, is finally here.

Superconference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Good luck to your team playing against that Big 10 (11), (14), (16), (18) team!

This SI article has a few interesting nuggets, including that the ACC was engaged in expansion conversations with the California schools, the Arizona schools and Utah in late July/early August. But that Yormark and the Big 12 had been pursuing and making their case to the Four Corner schools for a much longer time and likely presenting detailed analysis. That indicates to me that the ACC was behind the eight ball. If the ACC had been more aggressive and had been having in depth, substantive discussions with the other PAC-12 schools starting a year before, we might have been in a better position to land most of the remaining PAC-10 schools. Yes, geography was part of it, but also the previous time and energy that Yormark put into pursuing the Arizona schools and Utah.

Per the article:
By this point, on the same day the Pac-12 revealed its streaming-only media package to league presidents, the ACC had seriously engaged in expansion discussions with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Cal and Stanford. The move was triggered by Colorado’s departure from the Pac-12, which was made official July 27.

The ACC’s conversations with the five schools were serious. Phillips held discussions with the five presidents. However, while there was some momentum in the endeavor, the ACC found itself behind a rival Power Five conference: the Big 12, which had both geography and time on its side. Commissioner Brett Yormark had been pursuing the Arizona schools and Utah for months and had held intense discussions with Arizona specifically.

 

[Orangezoo]

So what becomes of Oregon St and Washington St? Interesting amidst all this is a year they are both top 25

 

[texascpa]

So what becomes of Oregon St and Washington St? Interesting amidst all this is a year they are both top 25

Right now they are arguing in court that they, and only they, get to make all decision on Pac12 matters, including the exit fees and the Pac12 conference ownership. My guess is that they merge with the MWC and keep the Pac12 name and constitution because the Pac12 still has an in with the National Championship.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So what becomes of Oregon St and Washington St? Interesting amidst all this is a year they are both top 25

They could try for a best of the rest conference. But they will have no TV contract. So they would need a proposed TV deal that is higher than the G5s. I believe the AAC is around $6M and the MWC around $4M. So if they could get a proposed deal of say $12M per team, they could poach some teams.

That being said there really isn't much available in the East. Otherwise a merger with the MWC is most likely IMO. If the PAC takes all MWC teams, that might open up the TV contract. On top of that maybe add UTSA and another Texas school to get to 16.

 

[atom58]

I think you are looking over the ACC academic snobbery. I think Utah and Arizona State are vulnerable if the ACC has a decent gap financially with the next B12 contract. If the ACC can get those 2 and a Texas school to get to 20, it would be great. If the snobbery is in play, I would think TCU is the 3rd team.

If current ACC members depart, I think the snobbery might block Cincy, WV, UCF. I think USF and Tulane get in before any of those 3. I could also see Baylor, assuming Texas Tech and Houston aren't better schools by then. Or even Rice if they become better with the AAC move. Colorado by then might be available as well. And of course the baller move, getting Kansas.

Where these schools are both academically and athletically in 10 years can change drastically. Which makes these scenarios so hard to predict.

Clemson and FSU are responsible for getting Louisville in - they wanted a stronger FB school. They are still in the 2nd 100 not 1st 100 as far as academic ratings go. I think Duke and one other school initally opposed FSU in 1990 but then they made the acceptance vote unanimous according to my memory. FSU and NC State are in the 1st 100 and prior to UL were the lowest in the ACC.

 

[orangepassion]

ND will want to play Stanford yearly.

After seeing Stanford lose to Sacramento State, think every ACC school will want to play them yearly

 

[CuseLegacy]

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/stanfords-future-foe-smu-raises-100-million-for-acc-move

"As well as receiving a huge donation from boosters since news broke that they'll be joining the ACC, SMU has also seen an influx of recruiting success as they currently hold the No. 8 class in the country for 2025."

 

[Cuse181]

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/stanfords-future-foe-smu-raises-100-million-for-acc-move

"As well as receiving a huge donation from boosters since news broke that they'll be joining the ACC, SMU has also seen an influx of recruiting success as they currently hold the No. 8 class in the country for 2025."

Only 43 schools have any recruits, 15 have 1, and 11 have 2. So 43-26= 17 putting SMU just barely in the top half... If you rank by average rating (versus points which makes larger classes ranked high on 247) they are 17th.

I think this SI writer is pushing a bit of a narrative.

 

[orange79]

Only 43 schools have any recruits, 15 have 1, and 11 have 2. So 43-26= 17 putting SMU just barely in the top half... If you rank by average rating (versus points which makes larger classes ranked high on 247) they are 17th.

I think this SI writer is pushing a bit of a narrative.

 

[MikeSU02]

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/stanfords-future-foe-smu-raises-100-million-for-acc-move

"As well as receiving a huge donation from boosters since news broke that they'll be joining the ACC, SMU has also seen an influx of recruiting success as they currently hold the No. 8 class in the country for 2025."

 

[Willy75]

If I read CBS Sports article on this correctly, SMU also got a separate, single donor commitment of $50mm towards a $100mm end zone complex at their stadium.