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

[Orangefizz]

Let’s talk numbers. If Stanford and Cal join and only take 60% and SMU joins for 5-7 years taking no media $$$ my math says there should be $70 million going to the ACC. Instead of splitting that money evenly among all members, why not use that to reward the top 4 finishers.

You add that to the success initiative already approved for additional revenue to any team making the CFB playoffs. So if you have a team like Clemson that wins the ACC championship and plays in the CFB playoffs, they would potentially make more than SEC schools.

$120(40*3) - $50(25*2) = $70M

ACC champion $22.5M
ACC runner-up: $17.5M
Top 3-4: $15M

 

[qdawgg]

How about those Rutgers numbers?

Take out some of the big schools they’ve played “rivalry” games with and imagine what the numbers would be. Those numbers are definitely helped by conference opponents.

 

[qdawgg]

Let’s talk numbers. If Stanford and Cal join and only take 60% and SMU joins for five years taking no media $$$ my math says there should be $70 million going to the ACC. Instead of splitting that money evenly among all members, why not use that to reward the top 4 finishers.

$120(40*3) - $50(25*2) = $70
ACC champion $22.5M
ACC runner-up: $17.5M
Top 3-4: $15M

Not a bad idea in general.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Take out some of the big schools they’ve played “rivalry” games with and imagine what the numbers would be. Those numbers are definitely helped by conference opponents.

The numbers sans OSU and Michigan speak for themselves.

 

[orlandoorange]

Is this all just a house of cards?

"Many university officials struggled to understand their own budgets and simply increased spending every year."

Colleges Spend Like There’s No Tomorrow. ‘These Places Are Just Devouring Money.’

wsj-article-webview-generator-prod.sc.onservo.com

 

[Sbucketball]

Is it logical to essentially root for the SEC to add schools like FSU, Clemson, Miami and others, since Syracuse has at least a shot of getting into the B1G but no shot at the SEC, so that means more spots in the B1G and the B1G might reciprocate by locking down the NE?

 

[BomberOrange]

Good info, thx. Both Cal and Stanford especially are better tv draws than I expected.

"Stanford & Cal are clear beneficiaries of the league’s scheduling format where the California schools play each other cross-division every year while everyone works around that. When USC & UCLA are cross-division it gives the duo a leg up on the northwest schools"

 

[orangepassion]

Is this all just a house of cards?

"Many university officials struggled to understand their own budgets and simply increased spending every year."

Colleges Spend Like There’s No Tomorrow. ‘These Places Are Just Devouring Money.’

wsj-article-webview-generator-prod.sc.onservo.com

Wow. Great article, but scary.

 

[sutomcat]

Let’s talk numbers. If Stanford and Cal join and only take 60% and SMU joins for 5-7 years taking no media $$$ my math says there should be $70 million going to the ACC. Instead of splitting that money evenly among all members, why not use that to reward the top 4 finishers.

You add that to the success initiative already approved for additional revenue to any team making the CFB playoffs. So if you have a team like Clemson that wins the ACC championship and plays in the CFB playoffs, they would potentially make more than SEC schools.

$120(40*3) - $50(25*2) = $70M

ACC champion $22.5M
ACC runner-up: $17.5M
Top 3-4: $15M

I think the plan being discussed includes money for all schools for the extra travel expenses adding these schools would drive. It probably is different for each school depending on where they are located and how easy and cheap it is to fly to Dallas and San Francisco from the school.

No idea how much that will cost but I suspect we are talking 7 figures for every school. More for the newbies if the ACC is willing to subsidize them (probably not).

Guessing $30 million of the extra money is lost to cover travel. Something in that range.

I think adding these schools would drive significant revenue because of increased fees from cable subscribers in Texas and California. Hoping this windfall is not included in the agreement ESPN has with the ACC where the ACC can add schools and not lose revenue. For states as huge as California and Texas, this could be very significant. Even with major cable cutter driven losses in cable subscriptions.

I would think the additional money from ACCN would easily cover travel costs and perhaps beyond this.

If you want everyone in the conference to vote yes and buy in, I think you want everyone to benefit financially. Give the current ACC members an extra $3 million each. That accounts for $45 million (ND probably gets less because they are not a member for football). That gives $25 million.

I think they have already agreed to give the conference champions more money than the other schools. For football and basketball.

That didn't satisfy FSU, who wants more money because some TV viewership numbers they paid a consultant to come up proports to say they deserve 15% of all the revenue from the conference. Would not be surprised if FSU would not vote yes unless they get at least 15% of all additional revenue because that is what they think they deserve.

 

[Willy75]

I'm sticking with an expansion/backfill strategy of as many of SMU, Tulane, TCU and Baylor as the ACC can get, whenever they can get them. Perhaps scheduling deals with Cal/Stanford. I personally have no interest in UCF, USF or any state schools in the Mountain Time Zone.

 

[TexanMark]

So if it is just Stanford, Cal, and SMU how does the ACC schedule that? I doubt anyone wants those schools as a perm rival. So you need to go down to 2 perm rivals, which means playing everyone 3x each over 7 seasons. Does UNC really want NC State only 3x in 7 years?

Unless the ACC adds a 9th game, which means playing everyone 2x in 4 years. It would also add TV value.

I assume 9 conference games if we grab these 3 teams

 

[Orangefizz]

I'm sticking with an expansion/backfill strategy of as many of SMU, Tulane, TCU and Baylor as the ACC can get, whenever they can get them. Perhaps scheduling deals with Cal/Stanford. I personally have no interest in UCF, USF or any state schools in the Mountain Time Zone.

UCF and South Florida become valuable as backfill strategies once Florida State and Miami leave the conference in 10 years

 

[Admiral Koga]

I think the plan being discussed includes money for all schools for the extra travel expenses adding these schools would drive. It probably is different for each school depending on where they are located and how easy and cheap it is to fly to Dallas and San Francisco from the school.

No idea how much that will cost but I suspect we are talking 7 figures for every school. More for the newbies if the ACC is willing to subsidize them (probably not).

Guessing $30 million of the extra money is lost to cover travel. Something in that range.

I think adding these schools would drive significant revenue because of increased fees from cable subscribers in Texas and California. Hoping this windfall is not included in the agreement ESPN has with the ACC where the ACC can add schools and not lose revenue. For states as huge as California and Texas, this could be very significant. Even with major cable cutter driven losses in cable subscriptions.

I would think the additional money from ACCN would easily cover travel costs and perhaps beyond this.

If you want everyone in the conference to vote yes and buy in, I think you want everyone to benefit financially. Give the current ACC members an extra $3 million each. That accounts for $45 million (ND probably gets less because they are not a member for football). That gives $25 million.

I think they have already agreed to give the conference champions more money than the other schools. For football and basketball.

That didn't satisfy FSU, who wants more money because some TV viewership numbers they paid a consultant to come up proports to say they deserve 15% of all the revenue from the conference. Would not be surprised if FSU would not vote yes unless they get at least 15% of all additional revenue because that is what they think they deserve.

At this point, what will satisfy FSU? Payment equal to Florida? Or Ohio State?

Doesn't a large part of expansion with these schools create a pool to re-create a conference after FSU (and others) leave. What is the monetary value of that? Zero to Florida State but a helluva lot more to Wake. It should be more important to the likes of UVa, VT, NCSt, Miami. No one knows what everything will look like in three years let alone ten.

The BIG 10 MIGHT want Syracuse. They surely will want UVa. Will they? They just passed on Stanford for a half share (and maybe less than that...who knows?) Of course they will want Syra/UVa who are more or less the same type of demographic. I don't want to debate the merits of these schools vis-a-vie the others...just saying that there is circumstantial evidence that Syra/Uva's (and everyone not named UNC/FSU/and likely Clemson) ticket won't necessarily get punched. This expansion, while not guaranteed, is a good hedge against that. IMO. I find it concerning that most of the schools in the ACC appear to not see it that way.

 

[Orangefizz]

I think the plan being discussed includes money for all schools for the extra travel expenses adding these schools would drive. It probably is different for each school depending on where they are located and how easy and cheap it is to fly to Dallas and San Francisco from the school.

No idea how much that will cost but I suspect we are talking 7 figures for every school. More for the newbies if the ACC is willing to subsidize them (probably not).

Guessing $30 million of the extra money is lost to cover travel. Something in that range.

I think adding these schools would drive significant revenue because of increased fees from cable subscribers in Texas and California. Hoping this windfall is not included in the agreement ESPN has with the ACC where the ACC can add schools and not lose revenue. For states as huge as California and Texas, this could be very significant. Even with major cable cutter driven losses in cable subscriptions.

I would think the additional money from ACCN would easily cover travel costs and perhaps beyond this.

If you want everyone in the conference to vote yes and buy in, I think you want everyone to benefit financially. Give the current ACC members an extra $3 million each. That accounts for $45 million (ND probably gets less because they are not a member for football). That gives $25 million.

I think they have already agreed to give the conference champions more money than the other schools. For football and basketball.

That didn't satisfy FSU, who wants more money because some TV viewership numbers they paid a consultant to come up proports to say they deserve 15% of all the revenue from the conference. Would not be surprised if FSU would not vote yes unless they get at least 15% of all additional revenue because that is what they think they deserve.

It used to be that the ACC conference headquarters got an equal revenue share. Why not cut that in half and use the $20 million to give to all schools for their increased travel budget

 

[Orangefizz]

At this point, what will satisfy FSU? Payment equal to Florida? Or Ohio State?

Doesn't a large part of expansion with these schools create a pool to re-create a conference after FSU (and others) leave. What is the monetary value of that? Zero to Florida State but a helluva lot more to Wake. It should be more important to the likes of UVa, VT, NCSt, Miami. No one knows what everything will look like in three years let alone ten.

The BIG 10 MIGHT want Syracuse. They surely will want UVa. Will they? They just passed on Stanford for a half share (and maybe less than that...who knows?) Of course they will want Syra/UVa who are more or less the same type of demographic. I don't want to debate the merits of these schools vis-a-vie the others...just saying that there is circumstantial evidence that Syra/Uva's (and everyone not named UNC/FSU/and likely Clemson) ticket won't necessarily get punched. This expansion, while not guaranteed, is a good hedge against that. IMO. I find it concerning that most of the schools in the ACC appear to not see it that way.

I see no way at all that Syracuse gets into the Big Ten Conference. SU is an average school athletically in a state that doesn’t produce football talent and hasn’t been successful in basketball or football in recent memory. I see the Big Ten eventually taking Notre Dame and Stanford; then Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech in Miami to have 4 divisions.

 

[TexanMark]

Well I didn’t include dilutive in the comment. I never claimed to be a lawyer but I do claim to be a finance guy

I'm going to give you a pro-rata like for your accretive comment but overall you are dilutive in this thread so you will get a "50% share of a like" for 5 pages of this thread.

 

[Scooch]

I'm going to give you a pro-rata like for your accretive comment but overall you are dilutive in this thread so you will get a "50% share of a like" for 5 pages of this thread.

Lock the thread. This is peak realignment message boarding.

 

[Chip]

They wouldn't vote yesterday. I think this tells us

a) there aren't enough votes to make this happen right now and
b) they have to be pretty close to having the votes or they just would have reported that the idea has been tabled.

Reports I have seen say FSU, Clemson and UNC are the three known no votes. Apparently at least one other school is also voting no right now.

Why did these three vote no? What do they have in common?

I suspect they won't vote yes unless as a result of doing this, they get a bigger share of the extra revenue adding these schools would bring.

They see this as a chance to extort some money.

If this is the case, it really is a shame.

Seems like they have checked out as ACC conference members.

They don't care about the long term future of the conference. They only care about taking as much money as possible from their partner's pockets.

Am I reading this wrong? Do I need to apologize to these schools?

I don’t even know where I read this, so it could have been here. But someone speculated they were voting no because it would make it harder to dissolve the conference. Theory was that it takes 8 now to do it. You add 3 who would certainly vote no, it becomes harder to keep your options open.

 

[baggerbob]

They wouldn't vote yesterday. I think this tells us

a) there aren't enough votes to make this happen right now and
b) they have to be pretty close to having the votes or they just would have reported that the idea has been tabled.

Reports I have seen say FSU, Clemson and UNC are the three known no votes. Apparently at least one other school is also voting no right now.

Why did these three vote no? What do they have in common?

I suspect they won't vote yes unless as a result of doing this, they get a bigger share of the extra revenue adding these schools would bring.

They see this as a chance to extort some money.

If this is the case, it really is a shame.

Seems like they have checked out as ACC conference members.

They don't care about the long term future of the conference. They only care about taking as much money as possible from their partner's pockets.

Am I reading this wrong? Do I need to apologize to these schools?

We need to go 3-0 against those 3 schools this year, and Red needs to have a great 1st year.

 

[AZOrange]

Fancy this our conference has the ability to align itself with the finest educational institution in the US if not the world and that’s not even a consideration in these matters. It is crazy how we’ve gotten here.

 

[orangenauburn]

When it happens. UNC will be the first school to pull out of the ACC. I don't trust those folks at all.

If I'm the ACC I sit still for a bit. The programs we are chasing will be there and if we wait long enough some Big 12 programs may be there in a few years as well.

100% will be UNC under cover of night will bolt first.

Them coming out with a random statement that they will never leave the ACC was a huge red flag.

 

[Sbucketball]

I don’t even know where I read this, so it could have been here. But someone speculated they were voting no because it would make it harder to dissolve the conference. Theory was that it takes 8 now to do it. You add 3 who would certainly vote no, it becomes harder to keep your options open.

I didn't hear that anywhere, but that was my assumption. These schools already decided to leave so they have no interest in fortifying the ACC and making it more difficult on themselves. They are 100% focused on easing the pain upon exit.

 

[sutomcat]

I don’t even know where I read this, so it could have been here. But someone speculated they were voting no because it would make it harder to dissolve the conference. Theory was that it takes 8 now to do it. You add 3 who would certainly vote no, it becomes harder to keep your options open.

Still don't believe a simple majority could dissolve the conference but I did read the by laws document linked in this thread and did not see any discussion of how the conference itself could be dissolved (individual schools yes).

I guess it doesn't matter if these schools believe it.

This is as good a theory as any. Sure doesn't feel like a conference where everyone works together for the greater good. Sigh.

 

[Sbucketball]

When it happens. UNC will be the first school to pull out of the ACC. I don't trust those folks at all.

If I'm the ACC I sit still for a bit. The programs we are chasing will be there and if we wait long enough some Big 12 programs may be there in a few years as well.

Maybe Roger Ayers will retroactively withdraw his F1 charge call against Judah last year that handed the game to precious UNC with a bow around it.

 

[shantydaze]

Long term they seem like a poor add. They get the ACC into the Dallas market and the ACCN into Texas. I rather see the ACC add Texas Tech and whomever makes the best sense from TCU/Baylor/Houston long term using 2029's data. Adding SMU would seem to be giving up a B12 raid.

The only way it makes sense is if the ACC is looking to be a national academic minded conference.

Is SMU even that good academically? According to USNWR, SMU is ranked 72, tied with NC State and only ahead of Clemson and Louisville. The Forbes ranking has SMU at 83, putting it ahead of Syracuse, Clemson, Pitt, and Louisville.