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

[sufandu]

All of this talk about market size and fanbase is almost meaningless. The SEC and B1G are not as valuable as they are because of TV market size. They're valuable because of their draw outside of their markets. Alabama, LSU, etc. are not all that great by themselves. Their success over the last 20+ years has drawn national interest outside of their states and their conference. ESPN values the SEC because people in Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, etc tune in. They're a 50 state draw.

What the ACC or any other league trying to keep up needs to do is add teams with the money and commitment to be good enough to compete for playoff spots and make noise in big time OOC matchups. We need to be forward thinking enough to find teams that are like Miami in the early '80's, a team about to hit big on the national scene. SMU may be that. Who else fits that bill?

 

[kcsu]

Guys, I can only say this so many times... markets don't matter. Brands matter.

Why?

When it comes to college football... Brands deliver markets. Markets don't create brands.

Brands drive ratings. Brands drive subscriptions.

Sometimes a top brand is in a top market. Oft times it is not.

A giant conference full of B and C-lists schools is not comparable, in any way, to what the B1G and SEC are, and will be.

Large student/ Alumni population also matters

 

[Scooch]

Large student/ Alumni population also matters

Kinda. Depends.

Florida International has a total enrollment of 57K. Georgia State is at 55K. North Texas, 47K. But none of these schools are going to be top-tier college football brands.

Now, it matters for the existing top brands, and creates separation. Needless to say, SU is never going to have the alumni base of an Ohio State, which limits our overall value compared to them. But that's been baked into the cake for years.

My point is that people fantasize about adding a UCF to a conference and dream on "development" or other such things. It's kinda silly. UCF is never going to be Florida State. Or come close really.

People have been dreaming on developing college football brands for 30 years. It really doesn't happen.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

Guys, I can only say this so many times... markets don't matter. Brands matter.

Why?

When it comes to college football... Brands deliver markets. Markets don't create brands.

Brands drive ratings. Brands drive subscriptions.

Sometimes a top brand is in a top market. Oft times it is not.

A giant conference full of B and C-lists schools is not comparable, in any way, to what the B1G and SEC are, and will be.

As my friends in horticulture often tell me, it's not the size of the worm-- it's the wiggle!

 

[Toga]

Isn't by far the biggest recent news for Syracuse that ESPN extended the ACC contract to 2036? By a wide margin?

 

[richmondcuse03]

Guys, I can only say this so many times... markets don't matter. Brands matter.

Why?

When it comes to college football... Brands deliver markets. Markets don't create brands.

Brands drive ratings. Brands drive subscriptions.

Sometimes a top brand is in a top market. Oft times it is not.

A giant conference full of B and C-lists schools is not comparable, in any way, to what the B1G and SEC are, and will be.

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.

 

[WoadBlue]

All of this talk about market size and fanbase is almost meaningless. The SEC and B1G are not as valuable as they are because of TV market size. They're valuable because of their draw outside of their markets. Alabama, LSU, etc. are not all that great by themselves. Their success over the last 20+ years has drawn national interest outside of their states and their conference. ESPN values the SEC because people in Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, etc tune in. They're a 50 state draw.

What the ACC or any other league trying to keep up needs to do is add teams with the money and commitment to be good enough to compete for playoff spots and make noise in big time OOC matchups. We need to be forward thinking enough to find teams that are like Miami in the early '80's, a team about to hit big on the national scene. SMU may be that. Who else fits that bill?

Your opening is a contradiction. It IS about fan base size, just not simplistically restricted to one local TV market or even one state. And the interesting part is that there is a huge correlation between a school's average attendance and its ability to draw large numbers of TV viewers. So it is a given that Auburn, located in a small town and the #2 state school and dissqtnt #2 football program in a small state, is always going to outdraw BC for TV viewers, and the size of Boston cannot alter that even a teeny tiny bit.

When you cannot add a PSU, then you look for other factors that can add to the league's football quality and, over time with improved quality, its national TV numbers. First is: state flagship and land grant schools that have some recent football history that matters at least regionally. Such schools will have built-in fans across that state and anywhere its alums live, as well as natives of the state who have made adult lives elsewhere. The AZ schools are a great example, because they do have guaranteed fans across AZ and also in CA, where so many of their alums live.

Another is to add schools that are in local TV markets and states that have proven big numbers watching CFB. DFWc and TX are perfect examples. That state is football obsessed. And while the flagship and land grant are guaranteed those massive TV numbers, any other school in Tim invading the 3 lorivate ones with real CFB history invading over the past 30 years or so, is goin to also start getting much larger TV numbers.

As improving quality of play is so important to a league not filled with large flagships and land grants getting large TV numbers, that league must add schools from TV markets and states that produce a lot of talent.

Those are the factors that the ACC always should have used in expanding. Adding BC was so ed it bordered on criminal stupidity, because it and its TV market and state can be nothing but dead weight for the ACC. They bring nothing that can help elevate a league's TV numbers or its quality of play.

TX is a very large state chock full of top talent and ardent TV watchers of CFB, and only 2 TX schools are in the P2. So that means that the league with the most TX schools that is in the 2nd Tier 2 has an advantage over the other such league.

OH is a large state that is football obsessed almost as much as is TX and that produces a whole lot of talent, with only 1 school in the P2. If ether is only 1 other school in OH that is in the 2nd Tier 2, and that school school is a very large state school, the league that has it has an advantage over the other Tier 2 league.

Right now, the only thing that elevates the ACC a bit over the Big 12 is we have FSU and Clemson, which have more successful histories and proven larger national TV audiences than any current Big 12 schools.

 

[WoadBlue]

Kinda. Depends.

Florida International has a total enrollment of 57K. Georgia State is at 55K. North Texas, 47K. But none of these schools are going to be top-tier college football brands.

Now, it matters for the existing top brands, and creates separation. Needless to say, SU is never going to have the alumni base of an Ohio State, which limits our overall value compared to them. But that's been baked into the cake for years.

My point is that people fantasize about adding a UCF to a conference and dream on "development" or other such things. It's kinda silly. UCF is never going to be Florida State. Or come close really.

People have been dreaming on developing college football brands for 30 years. It really doesn't happen.

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.

 

[Scooch]

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.

We’re past the point of that. College football is stratifying and separating *now*. It’ll largely be complete within a decade, if not sooner.

It’s too late to fantasize that UCF becomes Florida State. Schools and leagues have had the past 30+ years to get where they are. Now is the time when the herd gets culled.

 

[sufandu]

Your opening is a contradiction. It IS about fan base size, just not simplistically restricted to one local TV market or even one state. And the interesting part is that there is a huge correlation between a school's average attendance and its ability to draw large numbers of TV viewers. So it is a given that Auburn, located in a small town and the #2 state school and dissqtnt #2 football program in a small state, is always going to outdraw BC for TV viewers, and the size of Boston cannot alter that even a teeny tiny bit.

When you cannot add a PSU, then you look for other factors that can add to the league's football quality and, over time with improved quality, its national TV numbers. First is: state flagship and land grant schools that have some recent football history that matters at least regionally. Such schools will have built-in fans across that state and anywhere its alums live, as well as natives of the state who have made adult lives elsewhere. The AZ schools are a great example, because they do have guaranteed fans across AZ and also in CA, where so many of their alums live.

Another is to add schools that are in local TV markets and states that have proven big numbers watching CFB. DFWc and TX are perfect examples. That state is football obsessed. And while the flagship and land grant are guaranteed those massive TV numbers, any other school in Tim invading the 3 lorivate ones with real CFB history invading over the past 30 years or so, is goin to also start getting much larger TV numbers.

As improving quality of play is so important to a league not filled with large flagships and land grants getting large TV numbers, that league must add schools from TV markets and states that produce a lot of talent.

Those are the factors that the ACC always should have used in expanding. Adding BC was so ed it bordered on criminal stupidity, because it and its TV market and state can be nothing but dead weight for the ACC. They bring nothing that can help elevate a league's TV numbers or its quality of play.

TX is a very large state chock full of top talent and ardent TV watchers of CFB, and only 2 TX schools are in the P2. So that means that the league with the most TX schools that is in the 2nd Tier 2 has an advantage over the other such league.

OH is a large state that is football obsessed almost as much as is TX and that produces a whole lot of talent, with only 1 school in the P2. If ether is only 1 other school in OH that is in the 2nd Tier 2, and that school school is a very large state school, the league that has it has an advantage over the other Tier 2 league.

Right now, the only thing that elevates the ACC a bit over the Big 12 is we have FSU and Clemson, which have more successful histories and proven larger national TV audiences than any current Big 12 schools.

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.

 

[kcsu]

Kinda. Depends.

Florida International has a total enrollment of 57K. Georgia State is at 55K. North Texas, 47K. But none of these schools are going to be top-tier college football brands.

Now, it matters for the existing top brands, and creates separation. Needless to say, SU is never going to have the alumni base of an Ohio State, which limits our overall value compared to them. But that's been baked into the cake for years.

My point is that people fantasize about adding a UCF to a conference and dream on "development" or other such things. It's kinda silly. UCF is never going to be Florida State. Or come close really.

People have been dreaming on developing college football brands for 30 years. It really doesn't happen.

Well put. But you can elevate a brand if it has the right mix of ingredients.
SMU is an example. A couple of favorites in my book would be Houston and Cincinnati.

 

[sufandu]

Kinda. Depends.

Florida International has a total enrollment of 57K. Georgia State is at 55K. North Texas, 47K. But none of these schools are going to be top-tier college football brands.

Now, it matters for the existing top brands, and creates separation. Needless to say, SU is never going to have the alumni base of an Ohio State, which limits our overall value compared to them. But that's been baked into the cake for years.

My point is that people fantasize about adding a UCF to a conference and dream on "development" or other such things. It's kinda silly. UCF is never going to be Florida State. Or come close really.

People have been dreaming on developing college football brands for 30 years. It really doesn't happen.

Yeah. If the theory's of alumni and TV market were king, UCF should be running Florida. A team can get to that top tier but it has to be the way Miami did it in the '80's. You need to brashly beat the other top ten teams and dominate an era. Fortunately for schools that have money the stuff that worked for SMU and Miami back in the day that got them hammered, is now legal. If you have rich obssessed boosters, now is the time to make a splash.

 

[Scooch]

Well put. But you can elevate a brand if it has the right mix of ingredients.
SMU is an example. A couple of favorites in my book would be Houston and Cincinnati.

None of those schools have incremental media value. None.

People have been dreaming on Cincy for 25 years. They were top 10 program for a couple years. Nothing happened.

Like I said, the time for brand building ended. It’s over.

 

[kcsu]

None of those schools have incremental media value. None.

People have been dreaming on Cincy for 25 years. They were top 10 program for a couple years. Nothing happened.

Like I said, the time for brand building ended. It’s over.

Actually they both do and although it's minor they add value to the basketball ratings as well.

 

[sufandu]

Actually they both do and although it's minor they add value to the basketball ratings as well.

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

 

[baggerbob]

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.

Had Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse been the schools of the late 1980's and the 1990's, the ACC with Florida St and Clemson would have won some of those SEC titles and been fine.
4 of those 5 schools faded, and that's why the ACC is 3rd or 4th.

 

[sufandu]

Had Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse been the schools of the late 1980's and the 1990's, the ACC with Florida St and Clemson would have won some of those SEC titles and been fine.
4 of those 5 schools faded, and that's why the ACC is 3rd or 4th.

The SEC benefited from a bunch of traditionally strong teams fading while Saban entered the scene and Urban Meyer came on. USC went away, Texas and Oklahoma faded, Nebraska and Colorado dropped back, and the schools that you mentioned. Had the timing been different, the NCs are distributed differently and the scene is much more enjoyable. Now we have what we have, and I lose more interest every year.

 

[Toga]

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.

If the future is about streaming with consumers paying to watch their school (either alone or as part of a conference), I don't see many folks paying to watch other teams/conferences.

 

[AcAndAc]

Had Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse been the schools of the late 1980's and the 1990's, the ACC with Florida St and Clemson would have won some of those SEC titles and been fine.
4 of those 5 schools faded, and that's why the ACC is 3rd or 4th.

I'd say we slipped off that standard before the ACC took us, with no real promise of returning. We were clawing to get back to an 8-win per year team...

 

[WoadBlue]

None of those schools have incremental media value. None.

People have been dreaming on Cincy for 25 years. They were top 10 program for a couple years. Nothing happened.

Like I said, the time for brand building ended. It’s over.

If t is fully over, meaning no program that is not already nationally accepted a BIUG Time can ever reach that then everyone not in the SEC or BT should either get in one of them or else agree to accept a P2 that they can never be part of.

I do not think it impossible to see programs rise, perhaps even significantly, as in a program that never has won a football National Championship win one. But it is impossible for all schools that are not situated best for that to be possible.

For example, I think AZ ST could rise and achieve that. AZ HS football today is much deeper and producing much talent than it did when the Pac became 10. And Az St has more alums living in CA than Wake has living alums. That plus bordering CA means the right coach at Az ST, in the right conference for AZ St (meaning having at least a couple programs with bigger football names and histories than AZ St) can win that league and win big over several years, perhaps winning a National Championship and perhaps coming to be as big a TV draw across the far southwest of the nation as even SC.

And that means that it is also possible for the UofA, though Az ST is more likely for several reasons, including overall football history. Something similar is possible for Utah.

Cincy really has never been a member of a truly MAJOR conference in football. By the time it got into the BE, that league was gutted enough that the label Major was largely honorary. I think that Cincy in a full strength ACC would begin taking more and ore of the very solid 3* OH nd other BT states talent that otherwise would go to BT schools, and Cincy then could be right back in the playoffs, with a growing TV base. Obviously it can never equal tOSU, but that is not required to help ACC football. A large state school run a state as large as OH and as filled with football talent as OH is always a potential to crack the Top 10 and start drawing some large TV audiences.

 

[sufandu]

If the future is about streaming with consumers paying to watch their school (either alone or as part of a conference), I don't see many folks paying to watch other teams/conferences.

I don't think it will get that specific. There isn't enough incentive for the whoever is broadcasting to do that. Things will be packaged and people want to watch the top teams, regardless of their affiliation.

 

[Scooch]

If t is fully over, meaning no program that is not already nationally accepted a BIUG Time can ever reach that then everyone not in the SEC or BT should either get in one of them or else agree to accept a P2 that they can never be part of.

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.

 

[WoadBlue]

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.

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.

 

[WoadBlue]

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.

I do not accept that it is done. If the ACC fights well, it can survive as the 3rd Major conference. But it must fight, hard and well, with vision. And I have long accepted that it cannot win such a fight with Wake and BC still at the tit.

 

[AcAndAc]

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.

We may be assuming that the "haves" are so safe. I suppose we could see a landscape where the B1G starts looking at how much value they are getting from Northwestern, Rutgers, etc. Ohio State is OK with running budget deficits... but you have to think that they will eventually want to stop supporting dead weight.

Instead of trying to make a system where all biggish programs are part of the mix, maybe FOX/ESPN go in the other direction... an 20-team league of only the truly "haves" playing each other:

WEST: USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington
SOUTHWEST: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska
SOUTHEAST: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
EAST: Georgia, Clemson, Florida, Florida State
NORTH: Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Penn State

Let's argue about who is unfairly excluded from this mix? South Carolina? Wisconsin? Miami? Oh well. I think it would be OK. Play your division, plus 2 from each other division = 11 games. Maybe one game against a Tier II school (see below).

Then Tier II schools could form a few leagues. And then a Tier III. Big ranges of compensation... Tier I >>> Tier 2 >>> Tier 3. Require 2-year contracts and prohibit movements within Tier II and Tier III. Tier I is a free-for-all every year. A player could move from Tier II up to Tier I or down to Tier III without penalty. So Tier I steals from Tier II and III (and other Tier I schools)... and Tier II steals from Tier III and takes Tier I rejects. But the balance of competition is relatively equal within the Tiers. Maybe this will evolve organically.