Just finished reading most of this thread, and I think there's too much focus on TV sets, cable, etc. Cord cutting is the future and streaming is the future. Apple and Amazon and other will get into the college sports mix at some point, they're already trying.
What's the difference? Well, Rutgers is in the B1G because they gave them a load of cable subscribers. When it goes to streaming packages, fanbase size will matter, brand will matter, and quality of games will matter.
This should also raise the value of prestigious basketball games, too. You could sell UNC-Duke as PayPerView streaming.
Anything the ACC does should focus on preserving the quality of the on-field product while increasing the per-school value of media rights, with an eye towards a streaming future.
The B1G and SEC may wind up regretting some of their expansion plays in 5-10 years when the big money is coming from streaming and they're saddled with more deadweight than they want. I also think they're going to turn perennial double digit win programs into 7-5 programs a lot of years, and that takes away a huge aspect of what makes CFB what it is: anyone can dream. Lots of fanbases go into every season dreaming that a national title is possible, and when they're wrong it means going like 9-3 or something, and feeling like their dreams were realistic. Make that 7-5 a few years in a row, and they'll stop dreaming.
How do you reconcile the difference? I'm basically saying you need some dead weight in the conference AND that dead weight is bad, right? Well, nobody gives a flying you know what about Michigan/Maryland, Ohio State/Rutgers, etc. If you at least have some history there, some regional rivalry, the game is a little more valuable.
The other thing to consider is attempting to let schools keep more of the revenue they personally generate. This would not be advantageous to Syracuse, but it's the only way some of the pie in the sky suggestions ITT make sense. Like I don't see ND ending up in the ACC, but *maybe* if they got to keep all of their post-season revenue instead of sharing it? I don't know, just spitballing on that one.
FWIW if I were the ACC I would be seriously looking at a 21 to 24 team conference with 6 to 8 team divisions that functioned more like their own conferences, had regional integrity, and maintained rivalries. This would allow west coast expansion with minimal travel issues for non-revenue sports. You could also make your best play for Notre Dame (still not a great play but perhaps worth a shot) by letting them have a lot of say over who is in their division and how the rotating games are set up. But also, giving them a conference schedule that included 1-2 of their traditional opponents, while only having 6-8 conference games total and more freedom to schedule non-conference games or non-conference games against conference opponents might let them preserve their national brand despite being in a conference.
Once ND is out of play for the ACC (95% chance that's the case, if I'm being generous), then it gets more complicated. How many schools actually raise the dollar value per school now, versus how many could?
In order to not be at risk of getting raided again, you have to get the dollar value close enough to the B1G/SEC to allow the Clemsons and Florida States to say, "OK, it's not worth it for $10M a year. We've got an easier path to the playoffs here, better rivalries, etc."
But if you just go for pure cash grabs, you create something unsustainable. The B1G cannot stick with just USC and UCLA on the West Coast. They're obviously hoping to lure ND by dangling Stanford, which brings Cal, and then Oregon would make sense. If that doesn't happen, they're going to have to add some of those west coast schools anyway, and it might pull down the per-team payout.
So if the ACC tries to expand, it can't just be adding a Kansas or Oklahoma State or Colorado for dollar signs. That's the thinking that has dominated the last 10 years of expansion and realignment. 10 years from now, it'll be streaming. When the tipping point happens and the thinking shifts, I don't know (probably when Amazon or Apple pay out the ass for some of this content), but I'd like to see the ACC shift its thinking now. I don't care about getting into a state/market for cable subscribers, and I don't care about having too many teams in the same state. I care about fanbases and good games for viewers.
So think about who brings a lot of value AND makes sense to be playing current ACC teams, even on a rotating basis. As a Syracuse fan, I think it would be kind of cool to play Stanford and Cal in both sports. Washington in basketball currently for obvious reasons. Arizona in basketball. UConn in basketball. Kansas in basketball. WVU in both.
Make a list for every important team in the ACC, look for names that pop up on multiple lists, and you've got a good start to the way this stuff should be done by a forward-thinking power conference. Then you hope some of those teams match up with each other to come in together, and go from there.
Oh, and by the way, from a Syracuse perspective, the AD should be doing three things:
1. Spend as much as possible on football.
2. Spend as much as possible on basketball.
3. Anywhere the schools retain rights, create valuable content - streaming, Facebook, IG, TikTok, etc.
We're spending like 40% of what FSU spends on football. Closing the gap won't turn us into Clemson, but it might move us up a few notches as this all shakes out. Since we're going to be on the bubble if it goes to two super conferences, those last few notches may be all that matters.
