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

[PhatOrange]

The two alpha conferences should just go full send and super max it. 24, 26 or 28 teams each. They'd control every major market, state and media dollar and own half the D1 teams. You could pretty much dictate to the media companies what the price tag is.

SEC - Virginia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Arizona, Pitt, Kansas State, WVU, Florida State, OSU, KSU (26)

Big 10 - Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, BC, Miami (if I were the Big10 I'd scrap Kansas and grab Clemson. You'd have the entire Eastern and Western seaboard and nearly every valuable school north of the mason dixon line. If the current media rights deal is worth 7 billion not hard to believe this would easily double that. The Big wouldn't have overlap in this super max scenario either, 1 team per state and nearly every state's cash cow.

 

[Chip]

Yes. he made a ton of good points. That said, if he wants to bash people over conference realignment he should be bashing his two "good guys" Michigan's president and AD. They're part of the group keeping the NCAA from getting involved in realignment. The Pac-12 doesn't disintegrate if the B1G doesn't accept USC and UCLA as members.

I agree with that. In my original post, I thought it would at least be more constructive if people like this would question it before it happens not after.

The key point to me is that the B1G doesn't disintegrate if they don't add USC and UCLA. They'd still be doing as well as anyone. That extra cash grab, that's not going to the players at all, is the biggest problem in all of this. All the players get is quadruple the time spent on planes and in other time zones.

But oh well, in time, either it falls apart because the extra travel just doesn't work, or it all works out because no one really cares.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The acc took a swing but was outbid by the other leagues is my take

I would think that Cal and Stanford would have preferred being in a Western ACC pod vs where they are now. It also seemed that Arizona State and Utah wanted nothing to do with the B12 until the very end.

So I don't think the ACC was outbid but rather couldn't get a 75% vote to add those 4. I am sure some schools had no interest going West. Others only want to expand for a decent TV $ bump. While some have one foot out the ACC door. You only need 4 schools to say No to block it.

 

[All4SU]

How does Buttgers not top that list?

 

[All4SU]

You got it. Some people think there is a magical move the ACC can make that’ll keep the conference together forever. That’s nonsensical. As long as there is a wide disparity in revenue between the ACC and the B1G/SEC there will always be a chance that schools leave.

The “do something!” crowd is living in a fantasy world.

My hunch is that the end state — likely 6-10 years from now — is that much of the current ACC ends up in either the B1G or SEC, and the rest either slinks back to regional conferences or joins the Big 12, which acts as a land of misfit toys holding company.

It’s pretty wild that the reason the Big 12 may survive is because they don’t have any schools the B1G or SEC want.

In a disheartening, counter-intuitive sort of way, this might be a good time for schools like East Carolina, Temple, USF, and yes even UMass, to start improving - maybe knock off a B10 or SEC team or two.

But mostly we just need SU to elevate as much as possible.

 

[qdawgg]

I agree with that. In my original post, I thought it would at least be more constructive if people like this would question it before it happens not after.

The key point to me is that the B1G doesn't disintegrate if they don't add USC and UCLA. They'd still be doing as well as anyone. That extra cash grab, that's not going to the players at all, is the biggest problem in all of this. All the players get is quadruple the time spent on planes and in other time zones.

But oh well, in time, either it falls apart because the extra travel just doesn't work, or it all works out because no one really cares.

Which is why I think the SEC may end up doing something. The B10 really didn’t need to expand except to increase its size (not sure you were definitely saying or alluding to this as well). That’s a threat to the SEC, imo.

 

[SU91]

If the Big Ten jettisoned any teams, it would be Northwestern, Purdue and Rutgers.

Why would the jettison Northwestern and Purdue?

 

[Scooch]

It a disheartening, counter-intuitive sort of way, thus might be a good time for schools like East Carolina, Temple, USF, and yes even UMass, to start improving - maybe knock off a B10 or SEC team or two.

But mostly we just need SU to elevate as much as possible.

I agree that it’d be best if SU is as good as possible in both football and hoops over the next 5-7 years. I’m not sure we have a place in the Power 2, but it wouldn’t hurt to be as attractive as possible.

 

[MikeSU02]

Let me ask a question, now that the dust has settled from the crazy development from late last week.

Just asking this from a devil's advocate perspective. Of the P5, the Big 12's position prior to all this latest change was the most tenuous / unstable. And landing first Colorado, then capitalizing on the B1G's continued cannibalization of the PAC-10 to add Utah and the Arizona schools gave them a quartet of additions that are in their general geographic footprint. So it was good from a stabilization factor.

But do any of those four schools contribute financial "value?"

And let's just say for argument's sake that the ACC had proactively made the same moves [even though the geography makes no sense] -- and gone out and added Colorado, Arizona, ASU, and Utah. Would that have benefitted our conference, or just added four new mouths to feed?

Genuinely curious to hear what people think. In retrospect, seems like the Big 12 got a lot of credit for being proactive, but did they accomplish anything beyond stability?

I think ESPN is in a more precarious situation than what is being acknowledged. We all know the fact of the matter is that subs on cable bundles are going down and the next iteration of all of this is streaming / dtc that, as of now, does not create nearly the same revenue. With that said, here are the ACC choices, right?

>> Hold and let the GOR / exit fee do it's job and hope that a 3-5 year runway to make changes to garner more revenue is viable before this thing breaks apart. Basically the "it's too expensive to get divorced right now, so let's at least try therapy and a vacation to fix this".
>> Fatalist view of just holding out until the GOR / exit fees are viable for teams to bounce and then cash the exit checks and let the chips fall where they may with the remaining teams (maybe a clear second tier third conference with the non SEC/B1G schools and put the pressure on individual schools to figure out what their futures look like in a decade).
>> Aggressively try to grow numbers (remaining Pac teams, MWC, AAC etc) and hope that sheer quantity can somehow bring in more revenue (can't imagine this to be the case now that the Big 12 did a land grab)
>> Try to see if there are 2-4 teams that, if added, ESPN would be open to significantly upping the agreement. This would have to be pretty cut throat. I don't even know what's viable with the current penalties and I'm considering this to be like a 0.1% chance. It would need to basically be ND, PSU, Maryland or something. I'm sure the current penalties are prohibitively expensive and there is no way ND or PSU is changing anyway.
>> Try to win on the margins with ideas that aren't being done yet that can tap into streaming and marry into a strategic partnership with ESPN/ESPN DTC and a TBD other partner. Even if this could work, I'm not sure the value of this in terms of swaying anyone.

It's a tough spot. I'm not sure the answer. BUT, the one thing I'd say is that this all is really predicated on rights agreements continuing to go up. I'm not sure how long that arrow is going to just keep pointing up. But with that said, it's going to be long enough that the SEC and B1G are going to get huge deals, the admins of those conferences are going to be buying big boats and by the time it all crumbles, they won't care anyway.

 

[TheCusian]

Why would the jettison Northwestern and Purdue?

Schools with low interest, smaller disengaged fanbases. Same reason Vanderbilt and Wake make these lists.

Things are shifting from TV markets (cable) to eyeballs and passion (will you pay to stream). Sustained success has bred loyal fans to elite schools even if the TV market is poop (see Alabama).

If there is a super-league NFL style in 15 years, those schools will be on the outside of it.

 

[Scotch]

Schools with low interest, smaller disengaged fanbases. Same reason Vanderbilt and Wake make these lists.

Things are shifting from TV markets (cable) to eyeballs and passion (will you pay to stream). Sustained success has bred loyal fans to elite schools even if the TV market is poop (see Alabama).

If there is a super-league NFL style in 15 years, those schools will be on the outside of it.

Spot on about the evolution from cable markets to viewership - which makes me crazy because it means Rutgers got an invite during the 10 years - and only 10 years - in which they presented any financial value to a conference.

 

[oldpinepoint]

Each ACC program’s best and ideal fit for conference realignment

I like this guys prediction

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think our best hope would be something like the below...

B1G
Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Illinois, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Michigan State
Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, X
UVA, UNC, GA Tech, Miami

Where X would be between Pitt, SU, and BC. The above would keep rivalries while allowing your top programs to all flourish (well except the West).

I think going forward expansion will be based on Brand, then Fanbase, then Market, then Fit. I think our brand is the best (hopefully FB and BBall don't suck these next 10 years). We have the largest overall fanbase thanks to BBall (again that could change). The NY State market is larger than the Boston market. However overall Fit goes to Pitt, but then again maybe Penn State is against Pitt. If ND gets to choose then maybe BC is ahead of SU for Fit as well. But taking all 4 together as of right now, I think SU is the leader.

If we are looking at the B1G's long term plan, you have to think the above is pretty close to it. It seems pretty likely that they want Miami, UNC, UVA, and Notre Dame. And 22 teams seems like a pretty weird number to stop at. So if the B1G goes to 24, are we not a good candidate? Especially if they split up regionally? How do you get to 24 otherwise?

 

[sabach]

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Each ACC program’s best and ideal fit for conference realignment

I like this guys prediction

If the B1G doesn't want Stanford, I have a hard time seeing them have any interest in Duke. And certainly not over GA Tech.

Louisville to the SEC seems unrealistic.

Miami to the B1G makes more sense and no way the SEC takes both FSU and Miami.

So UNC goes to the B1G and NC State gets left out of the SEC?

UVA's ideal is with UNC. Otherwise it is B1G not SEC. They are a horrible SEC fit.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

That is cute that they assume no other movement.

 

[sutomcat]

I posted this article in today daily articles but I thought I would re-post it here with a special emphasis on one paragraph.

Reports: ACC had meeting set on adding Pac-12 schools before 'Big' departures

Friday was a wild day in college sports that saw a 'Power 5' conference consumed by two of its peers to the tune of five schools in one day. And the ACC was rep

www.tigernet.com

...
News & Observer reporter Andrew Carter confirmed that report and confirmed the idea that that kind of Western expansion is unlikely now for the league. Carter reported that an ACC/Pac-12 merger would've cost ACC schools between $1-3 million per year in TV revenue, saying that "no remaining P12 school brought value to the league."
...

There was an earlier report that the ACC could add members as they chose and the new members would get full payment. This report makes things look like that was not accurate.

This explains why the ACC was maybe not quite as eager to add the P12 refugees as the B12. Guessing that the B12 is also taking a haircut to add the P12 schools to their league. Guessing they are willing to take a short term hit to have extra schools in place in case another raid comes. Or maybe just because they are thinking there is strength in numbers.

 

[oldpinepoint]

I think our best hope would be something like the below...

B1G
Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Illinois, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Michigan State
Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, X
UVA, UNC, GA Tech, Miami

Where X would be between Pitt, SU, and BC. The above would keep rivalries while allowing your top programs to all flourish (well except the West).

I think going forward expansion will be based on Brand, then Fanbase, then Market, then Fit. I think our brand is the best (hopefully FB and BBall don't suck these next 10 years). We have the largest overall fanbase thanks to BBall (again that could change). The NY State market is larger than the Boston market. However overall Fit goes to Pitt, but then again maybe Penn State is against Pitt. If ND gets to choose then maybe BC is ahead of SU for Fit as well. But taking all 4 together as of right now, I think SU is the leader.

If we are looking at the B1G's long term plan, you have to think the above is pretty close to it. It seems pretty likely that they want Miami, UNC, UVA, and Notre Dame. And 22 teams seems like a pretty weird number to stop at. So if the B1G goes to 24, are we not a good candidate? Especially if they split up regionally? How do you get to 24 otherwise?

Not sure Pitt brings a lot to the table that Penn St doesn’t already deliver on.

 

[NYCCuse826]

Is there anything left in the West? The only candidates are San Diego State, Arizona State, BYU, and Colorado. Would adding 3-4 of those schools really be worth it?

I can see the SEC staying at 16.

There's always someone within the Big 12 who will want more money especially if they raise their profile.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

There's always someone within the Big 12 who will want more money especially if they raise their profile.

If we are talking West then that list is it. Sure they would jump but does the SEC really want them?

 

[Janner]

So its my understanding the new Big12 GOR runs through 2030-31, I believe. The ACC's GOR runs through 2036 I think. Wouldn't that mean that the Big 12 would be the next conference picked apart if the SEC, Big 10, and even the ACC look to expand down the road? I would think whatever program sees a significant expansion in ratings, attendance, national fan abse, etc would likely be a target for one of those 3 conferences, given their respective geographic needs.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

I agree. The stability is good for the Big 12 and the four-corners schools. The ACC needs to add Stanford and Cal if ESPN will sweeten the pocketbook to calm down Clemson and FSU.

Those programs suck and have no fans it would be like adding BC and Umass. The Bay area doesn't care about college sports.

Kansas and a Texas school would be the best to add from the Big 12.

 

[Millhouse]

I agree that it’d be best if SU is as good as possible in both football and hoops over the next 5-7 years. I’m not sure we have a place in the Power 2, but it wouldn’t hurt to be as attractive as possible.

As the big leagues get more consolidated and the better young athletes get with training and nutrition, being an also ran doesn't have to be that bad a thing, especially if schools are paid more on their direct value. I'm not going to assume the worst because who knows what will happen and I'm not going to get as upset at bad outcomes if they do happen.

There are so many great performers, the population of them far outpaces the number of teams. I think about the gap in pay between the best NBA players and the guys who are 95% as good that barely make a living

 

[Franz69]

 

[shantydaze]

“Worst move” isn’t a good headline, although the piece itself is good.

Adding Rutgers was great for the other B1G schools — they’ve made a ton of $$$ in cable TV revenue and haven’t had to deal with another legit competitor in any sport. Win win.

One thing this piece does illustrate is that simply getting a huge bump in revenue means **absolutely nothing** for a school in terms of on field success.

Don't tell FSU that.