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

[HRE Otto IV]

Take out every other argument. I think it comes down to money. Does SU accept 10million in annual revenue, or a 40million payout in a National conference. And, unlike WV, we still will have our nearby travel partners.

The gap wouldn’t be that large. It would be like $30M vs $20M, maybe $15M.

If we keep the ACC six together we get to split 8 exit fees. That is a significant amount of money. Better to have that cash now to invest in the program vs a non significant amount yearly in the B12.

Travel costs would be a lot cheaper.

Attendance revenue would be higher. Our fans won’t care about those B12 schools. Also we will be a worse team, SU fans need Ws to show up.

FB playoff money payouts are 2x higher in the ACC.

We can actually make the playoffs from time to time and have a good shot at the ACC CG. We get buried in the B12.

In an ACC we play on the East Coast were easier to engage with fans and alumni. We also would be group with very like minded schools.

It seems like a no brainer to build back better along with GA Tech, Duke, Wake, Pitt, BC, ND.

 

[JimBoston]

The individual schools granted their rights to the conference for the purpose of exchanging the rights with ESPN for a network and other broadcast opportunities. Dissolution is not as simple as ESPN will still hold the rights of each member until the GOR expires. Meanwhile, ESPN has met it's duties to date: network, broadcasting, streaming, and payouts splitting the revenue generated or a minimum guarantee.

ESPN is a factor, they hold each school's rights whether they stay or leave. See OU and UT's fist attempt to leave early.

We can all agree that ESPN is in cost cutting mode. And, I think most of us would agree that the ACC has some schools that are more valuable than others. Some football matchups like FSU/LSU are more valuable to ESPN (ratings) than FSU/Wake Forest.

If the ACC wanted to dissolve the conference (big if!) and the end result was an improved revenue and cost situation for ESPN, they would not challenge the GORs. This could be accomplished by pushing some schools to the SEC (full ESPN property), Big 12 (partial ESPN property), Big 10 (FOX), and some schools left out. You would get better matchups for the schools moving to the SEC, similar matchups and costs for the schools moving to the Big 12, and not pay the schools moving to the Big 10 or not included in the shuffle. Doesn't this sound similar to what ESPN did to the old Big East?

The difference between the Oklahoma/Texas situation is that only 2 schools wanted to leave the Big 12 so they would have had to challenge the GORs which was a non-starter. If the ACC voted to dissolve the conference, the only way the GORs could be contested is by ESPN.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

We can all agree that ESPN is in cost cutting mode. And, I think most of us would agree that the ACC has some schools that are more valuable than others. Some football matchups like FSU/LSU are more valuable to ESPN (ratings) than FSU/Wake Forest.

If the ACC wanted to dissolve the conference (big if!) and the end result was an improved revenue and cost situation for ESPN, they would not challenge the GORs. This could be accomplished by pushing some schools to the SEC (full ESPN property), Big 12 (partial ESPN property), Big 10 (FOX), and some schools left out. You would get better matchups for the schools moving to the SEC, similar matchups and costs for the schools moving to the Big 12, and not pay the schools moving to the Big 10 or not included in the shuffle. Doesn't this sound similar to what ESPN did to the old Big East?

The difference between the Oklahoma/Texas situation is that only 2 schools wanted to leave the Big 12 so they would have had to challenge the GORs which was a non-starter. If the ACC voted to dissolve the conference, the only way the GORs could be contested is by ESPN.

If the ACC went away, ESPN might end up increasing costs, depending on how many go to the SEC.

Getting 1/2 the conf for half price, losing 1/4 of the conf to the B1G, and paying 1/4 of the conf 3x the current rate is not a big cost cutter.

 

[JimBoston]

If the ACC went away, ESPN might end up increasing costs, depending on how many go to the SEC.

Getting 1/2 the conf for half price, losing 1/4 of the conf to the B1G, and paying 1/4 of the conf 3x the current rate is not a big cost cutter.

I should have been more clear as ESPN would shut down the ACC Network as well. I would think the school math would work like this: 1/4 conference gets 3x (SEC), 1/4 conference gets about same (B12), 1/2 conference gets zero (Big 10 and schools that have to move down.). So, ESPN is paying about the same, getting more attractive football games for the schools going to the SEC, and you shut down the ACC Network. Remember, the 2 highest rated football games last season that involved an ACC school were FSU/LSU and FSU/Florida. FSU and Clemson's TV ratings playing SEC schools on a weekly basis would probably be double to triple what they are in the ACC.

 

[AlaskaSU]

"We'll be one of the 'haves'. Someone else will be a 'have-not'".

If you look around the poker table and can't immediately spot the patsy, then you're the patsy.

What's even funnier to me is that if a bunch of the schools that are "always" on the losing end now decide to opt out and it's just the big boys left, how will their fans react if Georgia is consistently 3-9 or USC is consistently 2-10?

The first priority of the Athletic Director and Chancellor is to bring in as much revenue as possible. TV contracts are bigger than gate revenue. Schools would join a league on the moon if it meant more revenue.

There are multiple reasons why USC will have a less glossy record. The Admin. does not care. They will not be lobbying for weaker schools to pad their record. What they want are the schools that TV will pay the most for.

 

[Toga]

Isn’t football far bigger than MBB though, revenue wise? Not sure if that’s true for SU, but Duke FB for example makes more revenue than Duke MBB. Same with UNC.

That’s what I heard from Greg McElroy’s Always College Football channel.

Duke can only fit 87 people in their bandbox.

 

[Willy75]

Add Duke/WF and UCF for Florida exposure

could see something like this:
BC UCONN CUSE PITT WV CINCY VILLE DUKE WF GT UCF USF

UCF football will win that conference 7/10 years, with Louisville winning one of the others. I'd rather not be looking up at those guys.
And after a few years of winning UCF will be whining like FSU today.

 

[HtownOrange]

My frustration with the Magnificent Morons:
—Why did they invite Syracuse and Pitt in the first place if you were gonna just try to blow the whole thing up 10 years later anyways? Thanks for nothing. I thought this was seen as a long term partnership. Meaning decades.
—Also, why didn’t Swofford and the Presidents also try to poach Penn State at the same time? That could have maybe jarred loose the Michigan schools and OSU.
—Why did they sign that moronic extra long term contract?
—Why did they drag their feet for so long getting a conference channel off the ground?
—having the most revenue doesn’t actually equal winning national titles and making playoffs, as Phillips has pointed out. Why has Clemson won two recent titles (more than most SEC schools and all BIG schools).
—If Clemson can win, why can’t Florida State. Get your act together. The revenue gap isn’t why they’ve fallen to middle of the pack in their own conference.
—Why are they dragging their feet on expansion now? A West Coast flank with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and the Arizon schools would be great and will keep them out of the Big 12’s hands. The ACC needs to use its academic stature to its advantage in its fight with the Big 12 and PAC 12.

Your questions are why you don't hear any real powers talking about leaving. You only hear loud mouths, lazy reporters and internet fans talking as if they are sitting in the meetings.

There is much more information that the real decision makers see than the "it's obvious this is how it will go down" who list three elements that their "wisdom" is based on. While the three elements are often in the mix, they are only a small part of the decision.

The Alleged seven are probably pure speculation as a solidified group, Most people agree that the SEC is not significantly interested in NCState and VATech, let alone some others. Neither has been high on the B1G targets list going back 15 years. This indicates that neither has been promised a landing spot. Further, every ACC, B1G, Pac12 and Big12 school has seriously looked into the GOR as well as all 5 P-5 conferences, the networks (including streamers) and many law firms looking to make money; nobody has found an easy way to challenge it. It is safe to say that if the GOR was reasonably easy to challenge, the courts would be full of cases right not. Not one known case has been brought to challenge the GOR of any conference. Sure, they can be challenged but the agreements are written to strongly discourage a challenge.

Finally, while anyone can speculate the GOR matter between teams and even conferences, yet know one has even attempted to provide an halfway decent explanation of how ESPN, Fax, and other networks are not protected by the GORs. The networks own the broadcast rights and any action by the conferences or teams does not force the networks to lose their rights for the duration of the GOR. Unless all parties are happy, the GOR will not be broken easily.

 

[HtownOrange]

Yes. And Oklahoma is going to experience this first hand when they do a lot less winning in the B1G. Just like Nebraska.

My daughter and SIL live in Norman, they have a lot of contact with the school through locals and such, but no inside information. The talk is that is why Lincoln (who does not believe in defense) left and OU hired Brett Venebles, Clemson's vaunted DC as HC. OU knows they need to play defense if they want a chance to win in the SEC.

On the irony side, Lincoln is at USC and will have the same defense issues now in the B1G.

Again, no inside info, just talk around Norman, OK.

 

[HtownOrange]

We can all agree that ESPN is in cost cutting mode. And, I think most of us would agree that the ACC has some schools that are more valuable than others. Some football matchups like FSU/LSU are more valuable to ESPN (ratings) than FSU/Wake Forest.

If the ACC wanted to dissolve the conference (big if!) and the end result was an improved revenue and cost situation for ESPN, they would not challenge the GORs. This could be accomplished by pushing some schools to the SEC (full ESPN property), Big 12 (partial ESPN property), Big 10 (FOX), and some schools left out. You would get better matchups for the schools moving to the SEC, similar matchups and costs for the schools moving to the Big 12, and not pay the schools moving to the Big 10 or not included in the shuffle. Doesn't this sound similar to what ESPN did to the old Big East?

The difference between the Oklahoma/Texas situation is that only 2 schools wanted to leave the Big 12 so they would have had to challenge the GORs which was a non-starter. If the ACC voted to dissolve the conference, the only way the GORs could be contested is by ESPN.

I suggest that read the portions of the GOR which were linked in this thread. Also, ESPN owns the rights of each school individually whether they stay or leave the conference until the end of the GOR. Dissolving the conference does NOT dissolve the teams' agreement with ESPN. No conference is taking any team that is obligated under a GOR.

The only way to break the GOR is to quit playing sports until 2037 or work out a deal that everyone is happy with. The lack of anyone moving to break the GORs of any conference supports this argument.

 

[HtownOrange]

The first priority of the Athletic Director and Chancellor is to bring in as much revenue as possible. TV contracts are bigger than gate revenue. Schools would join a league on the moon if it meant more revenue.

There are multiple reasons why USC will have a less glossy record. The Admin. does not care. They will not be lobbying for weaker schools to pad their record. What they want are the schools that TV will pay the most for.

In theory, this works. In reality, without bottom feeders to beat up and get to winning records, USC will either take a beating of their own or will beat up on teams that were once world beaters and are no more. Fans and ratings will decrease. It is a zero sum gain, wins will equal losses.

Placing all the world beaters in two conferences without sufficient bottom feeders leaves a conference full of "has beens".

Think of it in terms of the bell curve, the left end is bottom feeders, the right end is big winners, the bulk of everyone else is distributed in the middle. Who among UM, MSU, tOSU, PSU, UNL, USC and Wiscy will be happy to drop to the middle on a consistent basis? Only 1-2 will remain perennial powers.

Likewise in the SEC, who among Bama, UGA, LSU, OU, UT, Florida, Tennessee (remember when they were a great team?) and TAMU is willing to languish as a mediocre team?

Fans are not going to follow mediocre and losing teams nor will the rest of CFBdom.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I should have been more clear as ESPN would shut down the ACC Network as well. I would think the school math would work like this: 1/4 conference gets 3x (SEC), 1/4 conference gets about same (B12), 1/2 conference gets zero (Big 10 and schools that have to move down.). So, ESPN is paying about the same, getting more attractive football games for the schools going to the SEC, and you shut down the ACC Network. Remember, the 2 highest rated football games last season that involved an ACC school were FSU/LSU and FSU/Florida. FSU and Clemson's TV ratings playing SEC schools on a weekly basis would probably be double to triple what they are in the ACC.

In 12 years sure. But they aren’t doing that now. Why pay the same amount of money for about half the inventory, some of which is quality (B16) teams.

Also I think it would be closer to 1/4 SEC, 1/4 B16, and half B12. Wake would probably end up in the AAC but the other 6 would be B12 or ACC 3.0

 

[realorange]

MSN

 

[TheCusian]

Clemson, sure. FSU, I mean, I guess so. Good history, looks like they are going to have a big year. The other schools? VaTech stinks. UVA is not much better. Best history is either not great or distant past. NC State famously cant get out of their own way and UNC has been high on their own supply for too long. Miami! Lol.

5 of the seven are wish casting themselves into other leagues when they can’t string together good seasons in this league! And FSU has peed all over itself for five years.

Had Miami, FSU actually been what they were supposed to be, the ACC would be in a *much* better place.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I was thinking about the B16 rumor of going to 24 schools. If that is true, then it had to have been absorbing most of the P10. You don't vote now for a school that will not be available for another 10 years. So the ACC teams should not have been in play. The idea must have been to add 8 of the 9 below schools. If that is true it gives an idea of what the B16 is thinking.

Arizona, Baylor, Cal, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Which means Washington State/Oregon State to the MWC and Arizona State to the B12.

 

[shantydaze]

I was thinking about the B16 rumor of going to 24 schools. If that is true, then it had to have been absorbing most of the P10. You don't vote now for a school that will not be available for another 10 years. So the ACC teams should not have been in play. The idea must have been to add 8 of the 9 below schools. If that is true it gives an idea of what the B16 is thinking.

Arizona, Baylor, Cal, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Which means Washington State/Oregon State to the MWC and Arizona State to the B12.

I do not think the B1G would even consider Baylor. A private, non-AAU Baptist school does not fit the profile. I also do not think Kansas makes the list.

The real question is how long does the B1G wait on ND, UNC, UVA, and GT? My guess is that the dream scenario for the B1G leadership would be to add those four along with Stanford, Washington, Oregon, and likely Cal. Although I could see there being a small chance the Cal invite goes to Colorado.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I do not think the B1G would even consider Baylor. A private, non-AAU Baptist school does not fit the profile. I also do not think Kansas makes the list.

The real question is how long does the B1G wait on ND, UNC, UVA, and GT? My guess is that the dream scenario for the B1G leadership would be to add those four along with Stanford, Washington, Oregon, and likely Cal. Although I could see there being a small chance the Cal invite goes to Colorado.

If the B16 wanted to get into Texas, then Baylor is the only real option. It would help Nebraska to recruit Texas again. They are a big research university, even though they are not AAU. I don't think they end up in the B16, but IMO they would be on the radar.

Kansas has the KC market and a huge BBall brand. I think they are a good +1 candidate.

I could see a pod of Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas (3 old Big 8s), and Baylor if the B16 goes XXL.

 

[elimunelson]

This is a pretty even handed look at what's going on, options, etc.

 

[CousCuse]

If the BigXII offers UCONN a spot can or will the ACC try to get them first?

 

[Orangefizz]

I think this would be a great conference for Syracuse if the top ACC teams left for the SEC in Big Ten conference. You could play nine games against your conference and a Home in Home with the big 12 West.

Big 12 East
Boston College (MA)
Connecticut (CT)
Syracuse (NY)
Pittsburgh (PA)
West Virginia (WV)
Cincinnati (OH)
Louisville (KY)
Kansas (KS)
Duke (NC)
Wake Forest (NC)
Georgia Tech (GA)
UCF (FL)

Big 12 West
Iowa St (IA)
Kansas St (KS)
Oklahoma St (OK)
Houston (TX)
Baylor (TX)
TCU (TX)
Texas Tech (TX)
Colorado (CO)
BYU (UT)
Utah (UT)
Arizona (AZ)
Arizona St (AZ)

If you really wanted to create a great basketball conference, you could add St. John’s, Villanova and Georgetown to the big 12 E. and Gonzaga to the big 12 W.

 

[Cuse'91]

I think this would be a great conference for Syracuse if the top ACC teams left for the SEC in Big Ten conference. You could play nine games against your conference and a Home in Home with the big 12 West.

Big 12 East
Boston College (MA)
Connecticut (CT)
Syracuse (NY)
Pittsburgh (PA)
West Virginia (WV)
Cincinnati (OH)
Louisville (KY)
Kansas (KS)
Duke (NC)
Wake Forest (NC)
Georgia Tech (GA)
UCF (FL)

Big 12 West
Iowa St (IA)
Kansas St (KS)
Oklahoma St (OK)
Houston (TX)
Baylor (TX)
TCU (TX)
Texas Tech (TX)
Colorado (CO)
BYU (UT)
Utah (UT)
Arizona (AZ)
Arizona St (AZ)

If you really wanted to create a great basketball conference, you could add St. John’s, Villanova and Georgetown to the big 12 E. and Gonzaga to the big 12 W.

Still think 4 "pods" of 6 teams would be better. Our pod being SU, Pitt, BC, WV, Louisville, and Cincy.

 

[Orangefizz]

I was thinking about the B16 rumor of going to 24 schools. If that is true, then it had to have been absorbing most of the P10. You don't vote now for a school that will not be available for another 10 years. So the ACC teams should not have been in play. The idea must have been to add 8 of the 9 below schools. If that is true it gives an idea of what the B16 is thinking.

Arizona, Baylor, Cal, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Which means Washington State/Oregon State to the MWC and Arizona State to the B12.

My opinion, the Big Ten expanding to 24 would involve taking 4 teams from the PAC and eventually 4 from the ACC. I personally see Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal/AZ/CU then UVA UNC Miami and GT for the ATL market/GA recruiting

 

[HRE Otto IV]

My opinion, the Big Ten expanding to 24 would involve taking 4 teams from the PAC and eventually 4 from the ACC. I personally see Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal/AZ/CU then UVA UNC Miami and GT for the ATL market/GA recruiting

They said they voted on 24 recently. That 24 would not include the ACC schools. You don't vote on adding a school that isn't available for 10 years.

 

[JimBoston]

In 12 years sure. But they aren’t doing that now. Why pay the same amount of money for about half the inventory, some of which is quality (B16) teams.

Also I think it would be closer to 1/4 SEC, 1/4 B16, and half B12. Wake would probably end up in the AAC but the other 6 would be B12 or ACC 3.0

Because the excess inventory is not that valuable? Look at what network the home football games of Syracuse, Wake Forest, and BC were carried on last year:

9 ACCN
4 Regional Sports Networks
3 ABC (2 against Clemson, 1 against Notre Dame)
3 ESPN 2
1 ESPN

Look at BC. They had 2 games on ACC Network, 2 on RSN, 1 on ESPN 2, and 1 on ABC (vs Clemson). Is that worth a full share of the ACC's TV media payout?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Because the excess inventory is not that valuable? Look at what network the home football games of Syracuse, Wake Forest, and BC were carried on last year:

9 ACCN
4 Regional Sports Networks
3 ABC (2 against Clemson, 1 against Notre Dame)
3 ESPN 2
1 ESPN

Look at BC. They had 2 games on ACC Network, 2 on RSN, 1 on ESPN 2, and 1 on ABC (vs Clemson). Is that worth a full share of the ACC's TV media payout?

Again, it is free to ESPN. Why give up something that is free of cost and you can make money on, no matter how small that number is? Your argument is great in 2030 but not so much right now.

ESPN needs content for their networks and ESPN+. Those 16 games you listed is lost content. Those 4 games that were sold to RSNs is lost income, without reducing any cost.

BC is not worth a full share. But Clemson is worth a lot more than a full share. So dumping BC and paying Clemson does nothing for lowering costs. Meanwhile you lower inventory, leaving you with less content to fill ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, ACCN, and ESPN+.

10 years from now Clemson is going to want what they are worth. So paying Clemson and keeping BC increases costs. At that point ESPN would do as you propose. But there is zero reason to do it now.