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

[HRE Otto IV]

Exactly. This is what I've been saying is most likely to happen for quite a while now. The cake is baked. At some point in the next few years the ACC will see a half dozen-ish of its best brands leave for the greener pastures of the B1G and SEC.

Given the GoR costs, and TV deal structures, the timeline is fuzzy. But it's almost certain to happen.

Then we'll see if the Leftover ACC and B12 merge and become the 0.5 in a 2.5 power conference landscape, or if they stay separate and we have a Power 2 and Medium 2.

I'm not suggesting college sports will *only* be the B1G and SEC. Or that schools not in those conferences won't have stretches where they make some noise and become an attraction for a bit. But I am suggesting that adding a bunch of B12 schools to the ACC provides zero incremental media value. The total deal may grow due to inventory expansion, but there will not be an organic, per-school increase in revenue because Cincy or UCF are now in the ACC. I feel extremely confident about that.

Depending on who and how many go to the P2, I really hope both conferences decide to go Medium 2 vs merging into a 0.5 conference. If the money is not significantly different (meaning less but not "you cannot turn this down" less) is it not better being in a smaller, regional conference?

Costs wise it would be. IMO it would be competitively as well. Teams get lost or stuck in a rut with these mega conferences. I think the Big East and then the UConn AAC/Big East decision are good examples of why it is better to stay small and semi regional.

When the Big East was 16 teams, if you were in the middle or worse you had to climb over a lot of teams to reach the top of the conference as a program. For the teams at the top, it also made it harder to stay at the top.

When the Big East went down to 10 teams you had Nova winning titles, Providence and Seton Hall make multiple NCAATs, Marquette being a Top 15 mainstay, and then the reemergence of UConn. Maybe Nova and UConn still eventually happen in a mega conference, but no way PC or Seton Hall rise. Or even Creighton.

UConn looked at the AAC and said why are we playing schools that are far away from us, and our fanbase generally does not care about? If the money isn't significant, I rather SU take a similar approach if/when we get left behind.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Precisely. This matters even more in a post cable, streaming world. Bigger brands = more subscribers.

What fan bases will pay the extra $20/month for a sports subscription streaming service with their team on it. That's really what matters. Alabama isn't a "top" market but they have a huge brand and lots of fans who subscribe and watch them. That's what matters.

I do wonder though if it is worth losing casual eyeballs? A few years ago I watched a decent amount of MLS games. I even attended a few games. My interest faded well before the Apple TV deal. But I would watch every now and then. Since the Apple TV deal I watch no games. Even the ones on TV. Not enough exposure for me to pay attention.

I am sure financially the Apple TV deal makes sense. Although I do think MLS is stuck with the production costs if I am not mistaken. But is it sustainable? Have they lost any significant viewership with the move? Will advertisers say you only have a small niche following and no casuals? Which leads to less money?

I do think that ESPN and FOX will work together in all of this. I don't buy the mortal enemies theory. Just having the B1G fans or SEC fans as subscribers cuts off a lot of people. But if you have partial of both, or one and several small conferences bundled together you get more subscribers overall. If SU gets left behind I have no interest in buying a subscription to watch B1G or SEC football. I have not and never plan to add Peacock to watch B1G FB.

 

[sufandu]

The Big 12 was doomed from the start because Nebraska and Texas were certain to lock horns in a grudge match that would become a death match. They were fighting one another from the very start of the league. In fact, to this day, Nebraska people still all not akcndowlgee that the Big 12 was NOT the Big 8 adding 4 schools from TX, but was a brand new conference with 12 charter members. Both SWC and Big 8 legally dissolved, and then the new Big 12 was chartered. Nebraska always acted as if if the new league were their old league expanded, and thus that Nebraska had the right to acknowledged as league unofficial leader.

If the SWC had trimmed itself and added from the Big 8 wisely, then that league could be alive and well today. Especially if it had turned westward to capture the MT zone as well in a Super sized conference.

I think you may prefer to miss the part of about dead weight members of a league in terms of drawing TV viewers. The Pac issues had nothing to with Oregon or SC or Washington, etc. but with Wazzou and Oregon ST and even UCLA losing much of its TV drawing power for both revenue sports. The Pac issues also featured being restricted to the two western most time zones. What the old time pac fans call East Coast bias is the simple fact that few people in ET or CT care to watch games matching 2 teams from west of CT. What the Pac should have bent over backwards to do a long time ago was create an extensive OOC scheduling plan with the ACC.

Since the 1970s, ACC members (which means we are not talking about Miami), have won more football National Championships than have BT members. Your focus on the SEC must ignore that, because the BT smacks the ACC in total TV viewers. And TV pays for those viewers, not for another National Champ. You have the rise of the SEC backwards. SEC decided to not waste any more money showing BE football and to then sopiend it all on the SEC back in the 1990s because the SEC games had proven passionate fans I. stadiums and watching in TV. The BE lacked both.

In a sense, what you stress is old BE football talk: Miami in 2021 won another National Championship, and because doing that makes a league huge with fans, then BE football is set in stone. That was simply not close to being almost true.

If 2 leagues have become SUPER rich and powerful, then anybody aspiring to get close to them and is neither crazy nor stupid will attempt to emulate them as much as possible. BT: 17 of 18 members are state Flagship and/or Land Grant. SEC: 15 of 16 are state Flagship and/or Land Grant.

But not all Flagships or Land Grants work. UConn, for example, is both for CT. But because CT is nothing in terms of HS football and has no history of its people watching any amount of CFB to halfway matter, having UConn is bad for CFB business. That goes double and then triple because both the Boston and NYC TV markets are per capita very weak for CFB unless it is about ND or PSU or top games between national name brands (such as Ohio St-Michigan or Bama-LSU or Texas-OU or UF-FSU). New Mexico is a flagship and not worth having, because NM is not a good HS football state and has no history of people watching a lot of CFB.

You're overthinking all this. Winning fixes everything. If Nebraska maintains their Osborne era success, Colorado maintains their McCartney era success, Texas doesn't decline under Mack Brown or replaces him better, and Oklahoma doesn't decline, nobody cares who joined who from where, because they would have all made a ton of money.

With the PAC nobody has been consistently good in forever, therefore nobody cares. USC has struggled to get back to Pete Carroll era success. Oregon has had blips but has yet to get to consistent contender status. NIL may be the boost they've waited for. With the exception of a year here or there, UCLA has flat out sucked for forever. When you have enough really good teams, the dead weight doesn't matter because they're ignored or forgotten. Nobody talks about how Miss St., Arkansas, Kentucky, or Vanderbilt have been mostly irrelevant because they've spend their time paying attention to Alabama, LSU, Georgia, and Florida.

If the Big East had been more than Miami, it would've been fine. The problem was we didn't win enough. See there it is again. When Miami went through its santions, the league champion needed to be undefeated or maybe have 1 league loss and no OOC losses while making NC noise. Nobody stepped up and did that. Instead all the other teams lost big bowl games, lost OOC games, and performed pretty meh when compared to the rest of the country.

You're right when you talk about the SEC fanbase, but they had that advantage for a long time. Despite that, other teams from other conferences were pospular on TV for a long time. People all over the country watched the dominant Nebraska teams of the 90's, the bad boy Miami teams, and the Matt Leinart/Reggie Bush USC teams. Those were dominant exciting teams. When they declined the SEC was able to take what was already a strong product and capitalize on the vacuum created by a decline in success across every other region of the country. The timing of this imbalance across the country combined with the rise TV revenue shifted priorities for institutions and have killed everything.

Since, as you point out, not all land grant/flagship programs or programs in large markets are strong options, and since all of the truly strong options that fit that criteria are already in the B1G or SEC, there has to be a different approach. We have to find well funded sleeping giants. If they have the large rabid alumni bases and/or are in large markets, all the better. But being well funded and being obsessed with winning need to be the first priority.

 

[kcsu]

How so? Why haven't they moved the needle previously? Do they have the financial backing to be an annual top 25 team?

Yes they both have strong support. Houston has more money than dirt if they need it

 

[TexanMark]

Arizona and Arizona State are not separating. Zero chance.

Agreed. Take both over one and Iowa State.

 

[TexanMark]

It happened with FSU, which was a girls college until WW2. It can happen, but conditions must be right. The school must be in or border a state that produces a lot of talent. The school must be in a state and region that already watches a lot of CFB. The school must have a lot of alums who demand top level winning football.

UCF actually has the ability to elevate. IMHO, the B12 is holding them back. If they joined the ACC they would do very well. They have a higher upside than USF. There is not a pro football team in Orlando where USF has the Bucs.

I see a ton more UCF license plates and car stickers than USF ones in Florida as anecdotal evidence. UCF legit draws 40K+ for games now.

Like Vegas, Orlando (Citrus Bowl and other sports venues) is a great tournament host city and can host lots of ACC events. Although ACC BB events need to stay north of ATL.

 

[TexanMark]

The Big 12 was doomed from the start because Nebraska and Texas were certain to lock horns in a grudge match that would become a death match. They were fighting one another from the very start of the league. In fact, to this day, Nebraska people still all not akcndowlgee that the Big 12 was NOT the Big 8 adding 4 schools from TX, but was a brand new conference with 12 charter members. Both SWC and Big 8 legally dissolved, and then the new Big 12 was chartered. Nebraska always acted as if if the new league were their old league expanded, and thus that Nebraska had the right to acknowledged as league unofficial leader.

If the SWC had trimmed itself and added from the Big 8 wisely, then that league could be alive and well today. Especially if it had turned westward to capture the MT zone as well in a Super sized conference.

I think you may prefer to miss the part of about dead weight members of a league in terms of drawing TV viewers. The Pac issues had nothing to with Oregon or SC or Washington, etc. but with Wazzou and Oregon ST and even UCLA losing much of its TV drawing power for both revenue sports. The Pac issues also featured being restricted to the two western most time zones. What the old time pac fans call East Coast bias is the simple fact that few people in ET or CT care to watch games matching 2 teams from west of CT. What the Pac should have bent over backwards to do a long time ago was create an extensive OOC scheduling plan with the ACC.

Since the 1970s, ACC members (which means we are not talking about Miami), have won more football National Championships than have BT members. Your focus on the SEC must ignore that, because the BT smacks the ACC in total TV viewers. And TV pays for those viewers, not for another National Champ. You have the rise of the SEC backwards. SEC decided to not waste any more money showing BE football and to then sopiend it all on the SEC back in the 1990s because the SEC games had proven passionate fans I. stadiums and watching in TV. The BE lacked both.

In a sense, what you stress is old BE football talk: Miami in 2021 won another National Championship, and because doing that makes a league huge with fans, then BE football is set in stone. That was simply not close to being almost true.

If 2 leagues have become SUPER rich and powerful, then anybody aspiring to get close to them and is neither crazy nor stupid will attempt to emulate them as much as possible. BT: 17 of 18 members are state Flagship and/or Land Grant. SEC: 15 of 16 are state Flagship and/or Land Grant.

But not all Flagships or Land Grants work. UConn, for example, is both for CT. But because CT is nothing in terms of HS football and has no history of its people watching any amount of CFB to halfway matter, having UConn is bad for CFB business. That goes double and then triple because both the Boston and NYC TV markets are per capita very weak for CFB unless it is about ND or PSU or top games between national name brands (such as Ohio St-Michigan or Bama-LSU or Texas-OU or UF-FSU). New Mexico is a flagship and not worth having, because NM is not a good HS football state and has no history of people watching a lot of CFB.

The ACC needs at least 1 school in New England. Yukon I think has a higher ceiling than BC but BC won't leave willingly

 

[TexanMark]

My opening sentence isn't a contradiction. The idea is about having schools that draw viewership from outside their inherent fanbase. ESPN didn't fall in love with the SEC because Auburn is better than BC. They did that because the conference won 14 of the last 26 NCs beginning with the BCS era and really it's more about winning the last 13 of 18, including 7 in a row. They drew/draw viewership outside of their fanbase. They were a conference of small markets that became must see TV for the entire country.

Thank you for explaining the popularity of football in Texas. I was completely unaware. Tell me, why was the Big 12 not strong enough to keep it's biggest schools when they had the state of Texas locked down? Giant population. The most football obsessed. They should have been the equal of the SEC. They weren't. It's a simple answer. They didn't win enough. Had Texas, Nebraska, A&M, and Oklahoma had things rolling the way Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia did, they would have been the conference making a ton of money, grabbing schools from other leagues. Had Miami remained Miami after their move, FSU not fallen off, Virginia Tech maintained their very good success, and Clemson still came on, the disparity between SEC and ACC would've been much smaller. Had the Big 12 and ACC been more succesful and denied the SEC about half of the NCs they won, they wouldn't have become the conference ESPN obsesses over.

If you're talking about scratching and clawing for mere survival, adding the types of schools being suggested is the strategy, at least for a while. If we want to narrow the gap, it won't be enough. Any land grant schools and state flagship schools that are worth anything have already been grabbed. The rest are schools that weren't good enough to be wanted and are mere scraps that couldn't keep their former conferences alive. If TV markets and alumni bases for schools like Arizona, USC, Oregon, and UCLA were enough of a draw, the PAC would've had enough power/money to prevent dissolving. It's not.

Adding schools like SMU is the best bet. They are in the type of market you describe, they have money, and they seem to have the commitment to winning. If they can be a consistent top 10-15 team, they can be a huge boost. If they can't, it won't matter that they're in the DFW market. Who else fits that profile of well funded sleeping giant in this NIL era? That is who we need, teams on the cusp of making the jump to big time status that will be good enough to draw viewership OUTSIDE of their market and alumni base. When a fan is done watching their team's game, we want them tuning into games from our conference. We want Michigan fans talking about SMU and tuning in. We want Alabama fans talking about us and watching after their game is over. That's what made the SEC king. That's what moves the needle.

Reason? Texas Longhorns and their fans. Arrogance, greed, entitled

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Really wish they had separate TV contracts for football, M/W BBall, and all other sports. Then these mega conferences can break up a bit.

I prefer a regional conference for all sports but a national for FB only isn’t bad as long as it is just FB. A semi regional BBall is ok as long as it isn’t other sports. Other sports should be Northeast only or close to it.