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

[Orangefizz]

Here's where women's sports might bail out the ACC. Women's sports are clearly gaining viewers, and it is a generational change. They don't want to lose that, and ACC women's hoops and soccer are still the best in the country.

We’re talking women’s hoops and soccer?

Conference realignment is all about football and Syracuse will be left behind and our best bet will be a hybrid big 12/ACC leftover conference

 

[IthacaMatt]

We’re talking women’s hoops and soccer?

Conference realignment is all about football and Syracuse will be left behind and our best bet will be a hybrid big 12/ACC leftover conference

It was in response to the observation that ESPN still needs East Coast programming. That's still where the most people live, and you can't convince them all to not care about their own schools being excluded from national championship consideration, post 2030.

They will need programming, and it helps that the ACC is still best in women's sports. More women are watching sports than ever before.

Obviously football drives realignment. We're talking about survival strategies.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I think a lot of people feel like this Q&A from Stewart Mandel's latest column:

With teams seeming to do away with spring games, or at least heading in that direction, why couldn’t they do closed-door spring games? I get coaches don’t want to lose players to the portal but wouldn’t it still benefit the players and staff to get a live game in? — Jasper Schmidt, Crosby, Minn.

Most teams hold scrimmages during the spring that the public never sees, and coaches will tell you they’re far more useful than the spring game. The spring game is primarily for the fans. Which is why I HATE that coaches are falling all over themselves to cancel them this year. Nebraska, Ohio State, Texas, USC and right on down the line.

Why do they have to be the most paranoid people on the planet? I’m not unsympathetic to the concerns about other schools going roster poaching, but as Dabo Swinney — who is keeping Clemson’s spring game — said last week, “Whether you have a spring game or not, (there’s) going to be tampering.” But sure, let’s take away this tradition that 40,000-60,000 fans of a school enjoy annually because someone might watch them on Big Ten Network and poach their second-string linebacker.

I have a particular bone to pick with Matt Rhule, whose 12-13 record in his first two seasons at Nebraska apparently has turned him into the arbiter of all things college football. First, he touched off the spring game revolt, and then, after Nebraska canceled its upcoming home-and-home with Tennessee, went on Urban Meyer’s podcast and said, “Why would you ever play one of those games?”

I’ll tell you why: The fans like them! Much more so than watching their team play Akron and Houston Christian, Nebraska’s two nonconference home opponents this season. Even if it means the Huskers might win seven games instead of eight.

Sorry to go on my soapbox, but I feel like college football finds new reasons every year to alienate its fans, from realignment to watered-down schedules to the price of hot dogs. It makes you want to shake a guy like Rhule and say, “Do you realize how you’re able to make $9 million a year to coach football? Because of those people!”

But I digress.

= = = = = = = = = =

I think a LOT of us feel this way, like every year they make it worse.

 

[Newhouser]

I think a lot of people feel like this Q&A from Stewart Mandel's latest column:

With teams seeming to do away with spring games, or at least heading in that direction, why couldn’t they do closed-door spring games? I get coaches don’t want to lose players to the portal but wouldn’t it still benefit the players and staff to get a live game in? — Jasper Schmidt, Crosby, Minn.

Most teams hold scrimmages during the spring that the public never sees, and coaches will tell you they’re far more useful than the spring game. The spring game is primarily for the fans. Which is why I HATE that coaches are falling all over themselves to cancel them this year. Nebraska, Ohio State, Texas, USC and right on down the line.

Why do they have to be the most paranoid people on the planet? I’m not unsympathetic to the concerns about other schools going roster poaching, but as Dabo Swinney — who is keeping Clemson’s spring game — said last week, “Whether you have a spring game or not, (there’s) going to be tampering.” But sure, let’s take away this tradition that 40,000-60,000 fans of a school enjoy annually because someone might watch them on Big Ten Network and poach their second-string linebacker.

I have a particular bone to pick with Matt Rhule, whose 12-13 record in his first two seasons at Nebraska apparently has turned him into the arbiter of all things college football. First, he touched off the spring game revolt, and then, after Nebraska canceled its upcoming home-and-home with Tennessee, went on Urban Meyer’s podcast and said, “Why would you ever play one of those games?”

I’ll tell you why: The fans like them! Much more so than watching their team play Akron and Houston Christian, Nebraska’s two nonconference home opponents this season. Even if it means the Huskers might win seven games instead of eight.

Sorry to go on my soapbox, but I feel like college football finds new reasons every year to alienate its fans, from realignment to watered-down schedules to the price of hot dogs. It makes you want to shake a guy like Rhule and say, “Do you realize how you’re able to make $9 million a year to coach football? Because of those people!”

But I digress.

= = = = = = = = = =

I think a LOT of us feel this way, like every year they make it worse.

Spring game to me is a nothing burger here, and based off our attendance I'm not alone.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Spring game to me is a nothing burger here, and based off our attendance I'm not alone.

Well, it's not like the program ever made much of a deal out of it. Their outreach to fans is barely existent.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Honestly could care less. Worrying about this crap is useless, I’ve been told we were done countless times since the late 90s . Maybe we are pockmarked for the new conf USA , I seriously don’t care , I’ll be in sect 333 until my age or health prohibits it.

This is where I am at. A lot of the same people that are predicting doom predicted it 10 years ago. Now they’re moving the goalposts. Sick of reading posters opinions who’ve mostly been wrong all the way.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

We can barely compete now. You want us to give up 2/3 of our revenue? We might as well play in the Patriot League. The Dome will never be full again, because we will never be relevant again.

What does compete mean?

The old Big East we can win. We cannot win the ACC or a future Franken Big 12. In either sport.

So when it comes to winning the conference we are better off. Everyone in that conference would be making the same money so we are on par with our peers. As long as we have access to the playoff it is better for the program.

If you mean nationally, newsflash we were done since the millennium in FB. Most likely we will not get back to being a Top 10 program in BBall.

The Dome is empty for FB anyway. For BBall we would have better crowds due to more success and known opponents/rivals. Also more alumni are engaged since we actually have road games nearby. Which helps NIL.

 

[IthacaMatt]

What does compete mean?

The old Big East we can win. We cannot win the ACC or a future Franken Big 12. In either sport.

So when it comes to winning the conference we are better off. Everyone in that conference would be making the same money so we are on par with our peers. As long as we have access to the playoff it is better for the program.

If you mean nationally, newsflash we were done since the millennium in FB. Most likely we will not get back to being a Top 10 program in BBall.

The Dome is empty for FB anyway. For BBall we would have better crowds due to more success and known opponents/rivals. Also more alumni are engaged since we actually have road games nearby. Which helps NIL.

OK, since you're ignoring the revenue point, I'll make it for you.
If SU were to rejoin the Big East, football would be done.

Football, in case you haven't noticed, decides everything.
Syracuse would give up 2/3 of its TV income. Our football program would die, and with it, our chances of ever being at the Big Boy Table ever again.

Syracuse has 7 men's varsity sports and 11 women's varsity sports. (I'm shocked it's that few, to be honest. The rest are club teams.). Ohio State, for comparison, has twice as many - 36 sports.

So, if we cut 2/3 of the budget, we would most likely drop football, and then cut about 4 of the 11 women's sports. So there you go.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

OK, since you're ignoring the revenue point, I'll make it for you.
If SU were to rejoin the Big East, football would be done.

Football, in case you haven't noticed, decides everything.
Syracuse would give up 2/3 of its TV income. Our football program would die, and with it, our chances of ever being at the Big Boy Table ever again.

Syracuse has 7 men's varsity sports and 11 women's varsity sports. (I'm shocked it's that few, to be honest. The rest are club teams.). Ohio State, for comparison, has twice as many - 36 sports.

So, if we cut 2/3 of the budget, we would most likely drop football, and then cut about 4 of the 11 women's sports. So there you go.

1. FB is done already. Pretending that it is not is naive and destructive.

2. That is the 4th best conference in both sports. Maybe 3rd in BBall where currently we are #5

3. We are going to take a hit money wise after the next round what does $10M matter? Shouldn’t the sport exist to win and not cash checks?

4. Other sports survive outside of the current P4.

5. All of this is assuming we don’t make the P2. Not saying leave what we currently have. But what we currently have will only exist 5 more years. It isn’t an option long term.

6. Joining the leftover B12 will be just like being in the ACC for both sports. We will be a middling program that our fans will lose interest in especially playing opponents no one cares about and that are far away.

 

[orange79]

ESPN seems to want to make the ACC fail as a major league.

Matt -

Explain to me why ESPN would want to make the ACC fail, when

1. it owns 50% of the ACC Network (after a huge initial outlay), and
2. it owns 50% of the ACC network at extremely advantageous terms.

It pays the ACC presumably below market value, hence increasing their profit. They would not have exercised their option to renew their contract with the ACC through 2036 if it were not fiscally advantageous
for them.

ESPN wanting to kill the ACC makes no sense.

 

[WoadBlue]

What does compete mean?

The old Big East we can win. We cannot win the ACC or a future Franken Big 12. In either sport.

So when it comes to winning the conference we are better off. Everyone in that conference would be making the same money so we are on par with our peers. As long as we have access to the playoff it is better for the program.

If you mean nationally, newsflash we were done since the millennium in FB. Most likely we will not get back to being a Top 10 program in BBall.

The Dome is empty for FB anyway. For BBall we would have better crowds due to more success and known opponents/rivals. Also more alumni are engaged since we actually have road games nearby. Which helps NIL.

When UConn decided to leave the AAC and return to the BE, I asked a UConn fan with whom I had talked off and on for years (mostly about why I was totally opposed to the ACC ever giving serious consideration to adding UConn) what he thought about that move. I said it meant that UConn was accepting to never be anything in D1A football, which means UConn football should return to D1AA as it was when BE started its football division.

The UConn guy said that what was best for UConn athletics overall was that its basketball be identified with THE top league set in and for the northeast and its basketball fans. And if that meant that UConn football became the worst in D1A or dropped back into D1AA, the important thing was UConn basketball.

I told him that was why UConn would hurt the ACC, but I understood what he meant. My guess is he would tell you that you are making the same basic case.

 

[Scooch]

I think a lot of people feel like this Q&A from Stewart Mandel's latest column:

With teams seeming to do away with spring games, or at least heading in that direction, why couldn’t they do closed-door spring games? I get coaches don’t want to lose players to the portal but wouldn’t it still benefit the players and staff to get a live game in? — Jasper Schmidt, Crosby, Minn.

Most teams hold scrimmages during the spring that the public never sees, and coaches will tell you they’re far more useful than the spring game. The spring game is primarily for the fans. Which is why I HATE that coaches are falling all over themselves to cancel them this year. Nebraska, Ohio State, Texas, USC and right on down the line.

Why do they have to be the most paranoid people on the planet? I’m not unsympathetic to the concerns about other schools going roster poaching, but as Dabo Swinney — who is keeping Clemson’s spring game — said last week, “Whether you have a spring game or not, (there’s) going to be tampering.” But sure, let’s take away this tradition that 40,000-60,000 fans of a school enjoy annually because someone might watch them on Big Ten Network and poach their second-string linebacker.

I have a particular bone to pick with Matt Rhule, whose 12-13 record in his first two seasons at Nebraska apparently has turned him into the arbiter of all things college football. First, he touched off the spring game revolt, and then, after Nebraska canceled its upcoming home-and-home with Tennessee, went on Urban Meyer’s podcast and said, “Why would you ever play one of those games?”

I’ll tell you why: The fans like them! Much more so than watching their team play Akron and Houston Christian, Nebraska’s two nonconference home opponents this season. Even if it means the Huskers might win seven games instead of eight.

Sorry to go on my soapbox, but I feel like college football finds new reasons every year to alienate its fans, from realignment to watered-down schedules to the price of hot dogs. It makes you want to shake a guy like Rhule and say, “Do you realize how you’re able to make $9 million a year to coach football? Because of those people!”

But I digress.

= = = = = = = = = =

I think a LOT of us feel this way, like every year they make it worse.

College football is actively hostile towards their fans. There has been literally nothing in 3 decades that is fan friendly.

 

[AcAndAc]

College football is actively hostile towards their fans. There has been literally nothing in 3 decades that is fan friendly.

And yet nothing makes the fans stop following.

 

[Scooch]

And yet nothing makes the fans stop following.

Americans are nothing if not gluttons for punishment.

 

[JimBoston]

Matt -

Explain to me why ESPN would want to make the ACC fail, when

1. it owns 50% of the ACC Network (after a huge initial outlay), and
2. it owns 50% of the ACC network at extremely advantageous terms.

It pays the ACC presumably below market value, hence increasing their profit. They would not have exercised their option to renew their contract with the ACC through 2036 if it were not fiscally advantageous
for them.

ESPN wanting to kill the ACC makes no sense.

I think ESPN knows that the ACCN (as is the SECN and BTN and ESPN as well) is in decline with cord cutting. Will there even be a traditional cable bundle in 10 years? ST, there was a bump in ACCN revenues with the addition of Stanford/Cal/SMU, but can it survive as a standalone streaming network? I think BTN/SECN/ESPN will survive as streaming networks.

ESPN will not lose ACC content, but the schools will change and ESPN may be paying a lower price for the content.

 

[WoadBlue]

I think ESPN knows that the ACCN (as is the SECN and BTN and ESPN as well) is in decline with cord cutting. Will there even be a traditional cable bundle in 10 years? ST, there was a bump in ACCN revenues with the addition of Stanford/Cal/SMU, but can it survive as a standalone streaming network? I think BTN/SECN/ESPN will survive as streaming networks.

ESPN will not lose ACC content, but the schools will change and ESPN may be paying a lower price for the content.

ESPN will lose content of any school that joins the BT. So what ESPN faces now is: does ESPN act to save the ACC at full strength? Or does ESPN gamble that it can secure every ACC member it sees as having major value within either the SEC or a weakened ACC (because you can bet that unless the ACC gets a better deal from ESPN that FSU and Clemson will leave for any SEC offer, even starting at reduced shares).

 

[IthacaMatt]

Matt -

Explain to me why ESPN would want to make the ACC fail, when

1. it owns 50% of the ACC Network (after a huge initial outlay), and
2. it owns 50% of the ACC network at extremely advantageous terms.

It pays the ACC presumably below market value, hence increasing their profit. They would not have exercised their option to renew their contract with the ACC through 2036 if it were not fiscally advantageous
for them.

ESPN wanting to kill the ACC makes no sense.

Why have they treated the ACC like a 2nd class property? They extended a 10 year option on the ACC Network at no raise in fee, which was years late in debuting in the first place (3 years, I think). That cost the ACC money while the Big 10 and SEC were getting ahead financially.

ESPN is the one who created the contract payment imbalance, which became a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we pay the ACC much less than the other leagues, eventually they will BE a 2nd class league, and here we are.

 

[orange79]

Why have they treated the ACC like a 2nd class property? They extended a 10 year option on the ACC Network at no raise in fee, which was years late in debuting in the first place (3 years, I think). That cost the ACC money while the Big 10 and SEC were getting ahead financially.

ESPN is the one who created the contract payment imbalance, which became a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we pay the ACC much less than the other leagues, eventually they will BE a 2nd class league, and here we are.

It makes 0 sense to kill a profitable network. That's all.

 

[IthacaMatt]

It makes 0 sense to kill a profitable network. That's all.

ESPN is seeing a subscriber decline, and is trying to allocate where it will spend its money. They chose to sacrifice the ACC, which has the footprint with the most viewers. But also, most of those viewers prefer pro sports in those markets along the Northeast corridor.

 

[Chris02M]

Why have they treated the ACC like a 2nd class property? They extended a 10 year option on the ACC Network at no raise in fee, which was years late in debuting in the first place (3 years, I think). That cost the ACC money while the Big 10 and SEC were getting ahead financially.

ESPN is the one who created the contract payment imbalance, which became a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we pay the ACC much less than the other leagues, eventually they will BE a 2nd class league, and here we are.

the no raise in fee is not necessary accurate either

 

[IthacaMatt]

the no raise in fee is not necessary accurate either

Not the new renewal from January, the one from several years ago.

 

[kcsu]

Matt -

Explain to me why ESPN would want to make the ACC fail, when

1. it owns 50% of the ACC Network (after a huge initial outlay), and
2. it owns 50% of the ACC network at extremely advantageous terms.

It pays the ACC presumably below market value, hence increasing their profit. They would not have exercised their option to renew their contract with the ACC through 2036 if it were not fiscally advantageous
for them.

ESPN wanting to kill the ACC makes no sense.

Matt needs to stick to his day job

 

[IthacaMatt]

Matt needs to stick to his day job

orange79 is agreeing with me that it is to their financial advantage (profit) to continue to underpay the ACC. Yes, they don't want it to die completely, but they don't want to have to pay them as much as they pay the SEC. That's indisputable, or they would have helped the ACC in the past, like they helped save the Big 12 (but did not help save the Pac-12). The evidence is out there that they manipulate conferences to ESPN's financial advantage. With player unions and pay scales coming, ESPN wants conference consolidation. Fewer parties to negotiate with.

 

[kcsu]

orange79 is agreeing with me that it is to their financial advantage (profit) to continue to underpay the ACC. Yes, they don't want it to die completely, but they don't want to have to pay them as much as they pay the SEC. That's indisputable, or they would have helped the ACC in the past, like they helped save the Big 12 (but did not help save the Pac-12). The evidence is out there that they manipulate conferences to ESPN's financial advantage. With player unions and pay scales coming, ESPN wants conference consolidation. Fewer parties to negotiate with.

No they don't want Fox to dominate. They love the ACC and the content.

 

[JimBoston]

No they don't want Fox to dominate. They love the ACC and the content.

In 10 years, I think most college sports will be streamed. For ESPN, the enemy is not FOX, but cord cutting.