USC and UCLA to the Big Ten

[Alsacs]

Some of the history is incorrect. So sleep through class.

I can guarantee i know more on this stuff than you do.
I hope you are feeling better.

 

[storange]

1. If I’m Notre Dame, I do what’s in the best interest of Notre Dame. They don’t owe anybody anything. Every school should do what’s best for them given the outlook for the future of CFB

2. If I’m Notre Dame, and the only thing keeping me in the ACC until 2036 is the GoR buyout, I tell the big Ten that we will gladly accept membership if you pay our buyout.

3. All these discussions of the ACC adding teams fails to take into account that the only school that moves the needle dollar and sense wise is ND. ESPN isn’t ponying up any more dough for WVU or the Pac 12/Big 12 grab bag.

4. I’ll be 69 years old when the ACC GoR expire. We have sucked for twenty years and will suck for the rest of my life. I don’t give a sh3t anymore. I’ll go to a game a year, watch them on TV. But the glory days ain’t coming back.

5. I want ESPN to choke on the bone, one way or another.

6. SUs primary focus should be on optimizing the hoops HC transition. Lax is dead, football is dead, hoops is on life support.

I could give a crap about ND. Honestly, they can do what is best for them, there is no loyalty anywhere by anyone.
Your completely off about SU.
- Have most talented football team since 2018, might be every bit as good but have tougher schedule.
-
Lax has the # 1 recruiting class in the country. Don’t look for many more losing records there.
- Hoops had top 20 recruiting class , hard to predict here , when freshman will play big role but in basketball that’s not always a bad thing.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

This is just wrong.
Notre Dame will do whatever is in their best interest.

ESPN doesn’t give a chit about the ACC. They had the SEC raid Oklahoma and Texas because they didn’t want to pay the Big XII then just wanted the value of the conference.

Fox just did the same thing to the PAC-12 with UCLA and USC.

ESPN isn’t going to just pay the ACC more just because they have good value and will bleed it out.

The ACC is going to get carved up by the Big Ten and SEC.
It will just be a couple of years.

When the revenues become even bigger in gaps those valuable ACC schools will bite the bullet.

People don’t get the GOR. They give the less valuable schools a payout in the end.

ESPN isn’t going to pay the ACC and it won’t let the ACC get on the open market.

Fox and ESPN will decide which brands they want their conferences to attempt and get.

Notre Dame is the next piece to move.

Then North Carolina will be next.

If the ACC schools were smart they would get ahead of the Big XII and try to do a merger with the PAC-10 schools but it doesn’t appear on their plans.

Why would ND move now? Nothing has changed from their perspective.

 

[Alsacs]

Why would ND move now? Nothing has changed from their perspective.

Big Ten can get a lot more money from their new TV contract starting in 2024.

They could let ND finish their contract with NBC but having ND committed get their second tier rights beyond Fox even more money.

Big Ten is projected to get about 1 billion a year with these new rights. USC and UCLA upped that atleast 200 million.
Notre Dame is the only 5 star piece on the board left.

They would generate a lot more money for the Big Ten.

Notre Dame is going to make a decision fairly soon. It’s going on now.

 

[dasher]

In the next 3-4 years both Mens and Women's lax will win a NC. Football will rise from the dead and hoops will make a slow and steady comeback to respectability.

I think you are correct. Where the Lax is dead comes from, just amazes me. We just had the #1 recruiting year in the country. I'm confidant that hoop can get it right in the next few years. Football is the big question. But we have had the best spring year in my lifetime. Great new coaches. Other improvements. Have to win 6 games this year. We aren't ever going to be Alabama. Or any other elite program. But we can be very good sometimes. That is still on the table.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

USC and UCLA upped that atleast 200 million.

What is this based on?

 

[rrlbees]

I can guarantee i know more on this stuff than you do.
I hope you are feeling better.

Over 1,000 posts in this thread.

 

[Alsacs]

What is this based on?

Here

But it does seem highly probably that BTN will see a significant boost to per-subscriber fees in at least the Los Angeles region from these additions, and potentially will see a boost for all of Southern California or all of California as well.

And we do know the general numbers for BTN. Earlier this year, Jon Wilner of The(San Jose) Mercury News wrote that BTN had an estimated 50 million subscribers and an estimated per-subscriber fee of $0.59 per month, as per S&P Global. That would be $29.5 million in per-subscriber-fee revenue alone each month ($364 million annually), before any revenue from ads on programming.



The $0.59 number doesn’t mean that every subscriber pays that to BTN, though. Instead, BTN is sold to distributors as part of a package with FS1 and FS2. In 2018, SNL Kagan estimated distributors were paying Fox $1.86 in total for in 2018, with BTN itself averaging $0.49 of that. As with most conference networks, BTN makes a different per-subscriber fee depending on if the subscriber is in their geographic footprint (higher) or not (lower). And in 2018, some estimates of their in-footprint and out-of-footprint per-subscriber fees came in at $1 and $0.39 respectively. Under that, using a substitution method two-equation solve (in-footprint subs plus out-of-footprint subs = 1, 1*in-footprint subs + 0.39*out-of-footprint subs = 0.59), BTN had about 32.8 percent in-footprint subscribers at that point.

So BTN gains not from just adding more subscribers, but particularly from adding in-footprint subscribers. That was the key part of their much-maligned additions of Rutgers and Maryland, with the former in particular helping them get in-market status for all of New York State with Time Warner and Cablevision in 2014. That alone netted them a conservative estimate of $48 million per year. And that’s key to their adding USC and UCLA, teams that play in the second-largest designated media market in the U.S. (as per Nielsen’s 2021-22 DMA rankings, the LA DMA’s estimated 5,735,230 TV homes was second only to NYC’s 7,452,620).

BTN will not get all of those homes, but we can get an idea how many they might get. The Nielsen TV universe for 2021-22 is an estimated 122.4 million homes. Nielsen’s multichannel video (cable, satellite, or virtual MVPD) estimate in January was 82.4 million homes. That January report estimated 54.3 million homes for BTN. So a way to calculate a conservative UCLA-USC impact for LA is as follows: keep the in-footprint and out-of-footprint fee estimates at $1 and $0.39, assume that BTN will receive a similar percentage of penetration in LA as it does nationally (54.3/122.4=42.7 percent), and assume that that 42.7 percent all already had BTN at the out-of-market price (so going from $0.39 to $1). That gives 42.7 percent home penetration * 5.73 million homes = 2.45 million homes, which multiplied by $0.61 is $1.49 million extra per month, or $17.9 million extra per year.


And the real number from the impact may well be higher. BTN is a more attractive carry (and may wind up on a more accessible tier) in Los Angeles with local teams in the conference than the preceding situation where its closest team was Nebraska, so its penetration in LA may wind up above its national average. Some of those subscribers also will likely come in from not having BTN at all, so the boost for them would be $1 per month rather than $0.61. And the eventual fee may wind up above $1. Los Angeles will have two local teams on the network under this plan, so there’s a possibility the per-sub fee there may wind up even higher. And this is also before any consideration of California markets outside Los Angeles, and some of them could certainly wind up as in-footprint BTN as well. (If New York can count as “in-footprint” thanks to New Jersey’s Rutgers, there will certainly be arguments to count at least wide swathes of California, if not the entire state.)



Unlike the 2010-14 realignment, it doesn’t seem like conference networks are the largest driving factor these days. The wider, top-tier media rights deals with the likes of Fox, ABC, and ESPN are considerably bigger. But the conference networks matter too, at least in the case of BTN. (The Pac-12 Networks, on the other hand, may have been doomed in their current form even before the exit of USC and UCLA.) Getting in-footprint status in at least the Los Angeles market and potentially beyond is a big deal. And it’s likely to lead to a big payday for BTN owners Fox and the conference

 

[Cusefan69]

What is this based on?

An article earlier quoted someone with the Big or Fox I think and it mentioned that both schools added dollars to roughly the number Alsacs called out. I believe he was referring to the number from that article.

 

[elimunelson]

Things are going to pick up again this week I bet. July 4th allowed a breather. My guess is BIG has their next selections ready but want to water drip the PR releases. I will be shocked if they don’t grab San Fran next.

ND won’t act as fast as everyone else. My guess is they won’t do anything. Money is always going to be there for them. They have maximum leverage all the time no matter the urgency

 

[longtimefan]

Here

But it does seem highly probably that BTN will see a significant boost to per-subscriber fees in at least the Los Angeles region from these additions, and potentially will see a boost for all of Southern California or all of California as well.

And we do know the general numbers for BTN. Earlier this year, Jon Wilner of The(San Jose) Mercury News wrote that BTN had an estimated 50 million subscribers and an estimated per-subscriber fee of $0.59 per month, as per S&P Global. That would be $29.5 million in per-subscriber-fee revenue alone each month ($364 million annually), before any revenue from ads on programming.



The $0.59 number doesn’t mean that every subscriber pays that to BTN, though. Instead, BTN is sold to distributors as part of a package with FS1 and FS2. In 2018, SNL Kagan estimated distributors were paying Fox $1.86 in total for in 2018, with BTN itself averaging $0.49 of that. As with most conference networks, BTN makes a different per-subscriber fee depending on if the subscriber is in their geographic footprint (higher) or not (lower). And in 2018, some estimates of their in-footprint and out-of-footprint per-subscriber fees came in at $1 and $0.39 respectively. Under that, using a substitution method two-equation solve (in-footprint subs plus out-of-footprint subs = 1, 1*in-footprint subs + 0.39*out-of-footprint subs = 0.59), BTN had about 32.8 percent in-footprint subscribers at that point.

So BTN gains not from just adding more subscribers, but particularly from adding in-footprint subscribers. That was the key part of their much-maligned additions of Rutgers and Maryland, with the former in particular helping them get in-market status for all of New York State with Time Warner and Cablevision in 2014. That alone netted them a conservative estimate of $48 million per year. And that’s key to their adding USC and UCLA, teams that play in the second-largest designated media market in the U.S. (as per Nielsen’s 2021-22 DMA rankings, the LA DMA’s estimated 5,735,230 TV homes was second only to NYC’s 7,452,620).

BTN will not get all of those homes, but we can get an idea how many they might get. The Nielsen TV universe for 2021-22 is an estimated 122.4 million homes. Nielsen’s multichannel video (cable, satellite, or virtual MVPD) estimate in January was 82.4 million homes. That January report estimated 54.3 million homes for BTN. So a way to calculate a conservative UCLA-USC impact for LA is as follows: keep the in-footprint and out-of-footprint fee estimates at $1 and $0.39, assume that BTN will receive a similar percentage of penetration in LA as it does nationally (54.3/122.4=42.7 percent), and assume that that 42.7 percent all already had BTN at the out-of-market price (so going from $0.39 to $1). That gives 42.7 percent home penetration * 5.73 million homes = 2.45 million homes, which multiplied by $0.61 is $1.49 million extra per month, or $17.9 million extra per year.


And the real number from the impact may well be higher. BTN is a more attractive carry (and may wind up on a more accessible tier) in Los Angeles with local teams in the conference than the preceding situation where its closest team was Nebraska, so its penetration in LA may wind up above its national average. Some of those subscribers also will likely come in from not having BTN at all, so the boost for them would be $1 per month rather than $0.61. And the eventual fee may wind up above $1. Los Angeles will have two local teams on the network under this plan, so there’s a possibility the per-sub fee there may wind up even higher. And this is also before any consideration of California markets outside Los Angeles, and some of them could certainly wind up as in-footprint BTN as well. (If New York can count as “in-footprint” thanks to New Jersey’s Rutgers, there will certainly be arguments to count at least wide swathes of California, if not the entire state.)



Unlike the 2010-14 realignment, it doesn’t seem like conference networks are the largest driving factor these days. The wider, top-tier media rights deals with the likes of Fox, ABC, and ESPN are considerably bigger. But the conference networks matter too, at least in the case of BTN. (The Pac-12 Networks, on the other hand, may have been doomed in their current form even before the exit of USC and UCLA.) Getting in-footprint status in at least the Los Angeles market and potentially beyond is a big deal. And it’s likely to lead to a big payday for BTN owners Fox and the conference

How does Rutgers "get in-market status for all of New York State"?

 

[Stern]

 

[sutomcat]

How does Rutgers "get in-market status for all of New York State"?

If by in market, they mean the B1G is treated like a network for in market teams, this is categorically wrong.

I have Spectrum.

The ACC network is part of their standard base Select package, as well as all the higher end packages.

The B1G network is not in the Select package. It wasn’t when the B1G network went on line, it isn’t now and I am very confident it never was.

Maybe the presence of Rutgers was enough to get B1G on some base packages in NYC. There might be enough janitors and sanitation workers from RU to make that happen. I am sure Penn State has more fans there and probably Michigan and Ohio State.

Rutgers has zero pull or appeal in almost all of NY and the cable packages reflect that.

https://www.spectrum.com/buy/featured

 

[CousCuse]

The PAC-12 was looking at 500 million per year losing USC and UCLA are going to take atleast 200 million off that.

If Texas and OU were 60-80% of Big12 value, USC and UCLA have to be at least as much for the PAC.

 

[Alsacs]

How does Rutgers "get in-market status for all of New York State"?

Fox used YES to bundle BTN on NYC cable networks.

The Yankees got BTN on NYC not Rutgers if the truth wants to be said.
Rutgers was the warm body used with the Yankees doing the work. NYC residents wanted Yes so they had to negotiate and got BTN as well.

 

[Alsacs]

If Texas and OU were 60-80% of Big12 value, USC and UCLA have to be at least as much for the PAC.

No, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Utah actually have their own markets even though they aren’t huge.

The Big XII is 4 teams in TX, 2 in OK, 2 in KS, 1 in IA, 1 in WV.

Those markets aren’t close to as good as the secondary Pac-12 markets.
Texas and Oklahoma were the overwhelming value in the Big XII.

 

[CousCuse]

No, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Utah actually have their own markets even though they aren’t huge.

The Big XII is 4 teams in TX, 2 in OK, 2 in KS, 1 in IA, 1 in WV.

Those markets aren’t close to as good as the secondary Pac-12 markets.
Texas and Oklahoma were the overwhelming value in the Big XII.

That sounds right. I was just thinking that USC and UCLA have won just about all the PAC football and basketball national championships for the conference.

 

[longtimefan]

Fox used YES to bundle BTN on NYC cable networks.

The Yankees got BTN on NYC not Rutgers if the truth wants to be said.
Rutgers was the warm body used with the Yankees doing the work. NYC residents wanted Yes so they had to negotiate and got BTN as well.

Which does not account for the non-NYC portion of NYS.

 

[longtimefan]

No, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Utah actually have their own markets even though they aren’t huge.

The Big XII is 4 teams in TX, 2 in OK, 2 in KS, 1 in IA, 1 in WV.

Those markets aren’t close to as good as the secondary Pac-12 markets.
Texas and Oklahoma were the overwhelming value in the Big XII.

The remaining PAC-12 markets are nothing to sneeze at:

Phoenix-10
San Francisco-13
Seattle-15
Denver-19

 

[DaCuse]

Why couldn’t the remaining PAC-12 join with the ACC?

 

[Acesn8s]

None of that makes logical sense. The B12 is small potatoes. Zero reason for a P12 school to move. And that won’t keep trans from leaving for the SEC or B1G. ACC dissolving GOR lol. Come on man.

We will see what happens, I guess. I’d say count on pac 12 schools leaving within 8 weeks.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

Here

But it does seem highly probably that BTN will see a significant boost to per-subscriber fees in at least the Los Angeles region from these additions, and potentially will see a boost for all of Southern California or all of California as well.

And we do know the general numbers for BTN. Earlier this year, Jon Wilner of The(San Jose) Mercury News wrote that BTN had an estimated 50 million subscribers and an estimated per-subscriber fee of $0.59 per month, as per S&P Global. That would be $29.5 million in per-subscriber-fee revenue alone each month ($364 million annually), before any revenue from ads on programming.



The $0.59 number doesn’t mean that every subscriber pays that to BTN, though. Instead, BTN is sold to distributors as part of a package with FS1 and FS2. In 2018, SNL Kagan estimated distributors were paying Fox $1.86 in total for in 2018, with BTN itself averaging $0.49 of that. As with most conference networks, BTN makes a different per-subscriber fee depending on if the subscriber is in their geographic footprint (higher) or not (lower). And in 2018, some estimates of their in-footprint and out-of-footprint per-subscriber fees came in at $1 and $0.39 respectively. Under that, using a substitution method two-equation solve (in-footprint subs plus out-of-footprint subs = 1, 1*in-footprint subs + 0.39*out-of-footprint subs = 0.59), BTN had about 32.8 percent in-footprint subscribers at that point.

So BTN gains not from just adding more subscribers, but particularly from adding in-footprint subscribers. That was the key part of their much-maligned additions of Rutgers and Maryland, with the former in particular helping them get in-market status for all of New York State with Time Warner and Cablevision in 2014. That alone netted them a conservative estimate of $48 million per year. And that’s key to their adding USC and UCLA, teams that play in the second-largest designated media market in the U.S. (as per Nielsen’s 2021-22 DMA rankings, the LA DMA’s estimated 5,735,230 TV homes was second only to NYC’s 7,452,620).

BTN will not get all of those homes, but we can get an idea how many they might get. The Nielsen TV universe for 2021-22 is an estimated 122.4 million homes. Nielsen’s multichannel video (cable, satellite, or virtual MVPD) estimate in January was 82.4 million homes. That January report estimated 54.3 million homes for BTN. So a way to calculate a conservative UCLA-USC impact for LA is as follows: keep the in-footprint and out-of-footprint fee estimates at $1 and $0.39, assume that BTN will receive a similar percentage of penetration in LA as it does nationally (54.3/122.4=42.7 percent), and assume that that 42.7 percent all already had BTN at the out-of-market price (so going from $0.39 to $1). That gives 42.7 percent home penetration * 5.73 million homes = 2.45 million homes, which multiplied by $0.61 is $1.49 million extra per month, or $17.9 million extra per year.


And the real number from the impact may well be higher. BTN is a more attractive carry (and may wind up on a more accessible tier) in Los Angeles with local teams in the conference than the preceding situation where its closest team was Nebraska, so its penetration in LA may wind up above its national average. Some of those subscribers also will likely come in from not having BTN at all, so the boost for them would be $1 per month rather than $0.61. And the eventual fee may wind up above $1. Los Angeles will have two local teams on the network under this plan, so there’s a possibility the per-sub fee there may wind up even higher. And this is also before any consideration of California markets outside Los Angeles, and some of them could certainly wind up as in-footprint BTN as well. (If New York can count as “in-footprint” thanks to New Jersey’s Rutgers, there will certainly be arguments to count at least wide swathes of California, if not the entire state.)



Unlike the 2010-14 realignment, it doesn’t seem like conference networks are the largest driving factor these days. The wider, top-tier media rights deals with the likes of Fox, ABC, and ESPN are considerably bigger. But the conference networks matter too, at least in the case of BTN. (The Pac-12 Networks, on the other hand, may have been doomed in their current form even before the exit of USC and UCLA.) Getting in-footprint status in at least the Los Angeles market and potentially beyond is a big deal. And it’s likely to lead to a big payday for BTN owners Fox and the conference

I appreciate you sharing that, but that was a lot for me to follow and it is very speculative.

I could see how PAC losing two anchor schools would result in it's TV rights being worth far less since they presumably account for 1/6 of the total content and are based in the largest market.

But Maryland and Rutgers combined, only brought the Big 10 an additional $48m per year (conservatively), and they think that two schools, with considerable overlap in fanbase, is going to net them double that (coming from a smaller market [LA vs. NY not CAL vs. NYC, NJ, MD/DC])?

I certainly see the value to the Big 10, don't get me wrong. But and additional $200 m per year seems too lofty and estimate.

In the end, I think you and others are right that there is virtually no way we don't end up in some second tier. I think those who mentioned the SEC possibly grabbing some schools in the region are probably on to Syracuse's only hope (if it matters).

Edit: Looks like that Thompson guy estimates them at about $143 m, the added value needed to not dilute the existing split. Where does that leave Notre Dame? They presumably add no new markets. As a lone entity, they are worth a lot. But ND's market and the Big 10 market almost completely overlap. Can ND add an addition $71.5 mil to the equation?

 

[Alsacs]

I appreciate you sharing that, but that was a lot for me to follow and it is very speculative.

I could see how PAC losing two anchor schools would result in it's TV rights being worth far less since they presumably account for 1/6 of the total content and are based in the largest market.

But Maryland and Rutgers combined, only brought the Big 10 an additional $48m per year (conservatively), and they think that two schools, with considerable overlap in fanbase, is going to net them double that (coming from a smaller market [LA vs. NY not CAL vs. NYC, NJ, MD/DC])?

I certainly see the value to the Big 10, don't get me wrong. But and additional $200 m per year seems too lofty and estimate.

Rutgers and Maryland only paid for their inclusion with cable boxes.

UCLA and USC will bring cable boxes from LA plus actual brand appeal to the Big Ten.

USC-Michigan, USC-Ohio State, UCLA-Penn State, UCLA-Wisconsin is very valuable content.

Rutgers and Maryland don’t bring that.
UCLA and USC aren’t bringing just their market which is the second biggest in the nation and unlike Rutgers in NYC, UCLA and USC do have juice in LA.

USC and UCLA will bring in a lot of revenue in this TV deal.
It’s whole new window for TV with games in 3 time zones now.

The Big Ten will expand to 16 teams when the addition of USC and UCLA becomes official in 2024. The conference’s $1 billion-a year television deal will presumably be shared equally among the members.

Thompson said the Big Ten’s decision to add two Los Angeles-based universities was rooted in a simple math equation. The 14 existing conference members know they’ll receive approximately $71.4 million per university under the new Fox deal. Adding two more partners only made sense if they could generate a minimum of $143 million in additional distributable revenue.

“To get there you could assume that the bulk of the 5.2 million pay TV homes in LA, San Diego, Palm Springs and Santa Barbara become inner-market Big Ten Network subscribers,” he said. “That will add significant affiliate revenue for the network.”

Adding Southern California to the portfolio increases the Big Ten’s core TV households by 25 percent. The result is additional advertising revenue for the Big Ten Network, Fox Broadcast Network and FS1 as well.

Said Thompson: “That should all be enough to convince Fox that the additional rights fees are worthwhile.”

 

[SWC75]

That sounds right. I was just thinking that USC and UCLA have won just about all the PAC football and basketball national championships for the conference.

Oregon ('39), Stanford ('42), Cal ('59) and Arizona ('97) all have basketball NC's. Washington ('91), Cal ('20-'22 and '37), Stanford ('26, '40), and Arizona State ('75) all have claimed FB titles, although they are disputed.

 

[SU94]

The remaining PAC-12 markets are nothing to sneeze at:

Phoenix-10
San Francisco-13
Seattle-15
Denver-19

This is exactly why Phillips (and perhaps Swarbrick) should have a mid-week call with the ASU, Oregon/Phil Knight, Washington and either 1/Cal, 2/Colorado, 3/Arizona.

The more I think about it, I think Notre Dame is going to sit still for a while. They are nothing if not measured. Always have been and that inactivity has had a important role in where they are today, which is a ridiculous place of strength. They did not jump in the 1980s. Not in ‘99. Not when Nebraska joined.

Why make a decision this week or this month or this year when the same decision can be made to in 2023 when they can leverage the end of the B10 current TV deal (I think that is the timing, if not, my apologies)?

In the interim, they can sit and watch. How do OU and Texas integrate in the SEC. How are USC and UCLA treated in their waning days as a member of the PAC 12. Where does Stanford land. Washington, ASU, etc. Does Clemson or FSU quiver?

The only caveat here is that I am relatively sure that the next phase of Notre Dame football and athletics will be orchestrated by Jack Swarbrick, who is not a spring chicken. He’s 68. I severely doubt he is going to hand the ball off to another AD who is coming in off the bench cold.

The ACC should not be sitting around idly in the coming weeks. And ESPN can be/should be an asset in this. If they help Phillips get to 20 (adding Stanford, ASU, Oregon, WAshington, +1) then ESPN can assert itself as the dominant figure in college sports. Yes, over Fox, who could not match up even with the Bruins and Trojans on board. At that point, ESPN would have flags planted on both coasts (sans LA) and the prime time, fertile real estate in the southeast, including Texas. They’d have the first and third most-powerful conferences in the SEC and the ACC, 35+ major universities and the B10 would be landlocked. Match up the markets. It is not close:

ACC: Boston/New England, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami/Lauderdale/West Palm, Orlando, Birmingham, New Orleans, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, OK City, KC, Nashville, Phoenix, Bay Area, Portland, Seattle, (maybe) Denver, Louisville, Norfolk, Buffalo/Rochester/Syracuse/Albany, Providence.
B10: Chicago, LA, San Diego, Twin Cities, Detroit, Columbus, Indianapolis, Philly, Baltimore, Cleveland, New Jersey, Milwaukee, Omaha, Vegas.
Shared/Split: NYC, St Louis, Pittsburgh, DC, Cincinnati.

They’d also have a great foothold on the basketball front (UK, Duke, UNC, SU, UVa, Texas, Florida) which is absolutely important, contrary to what you might be reading

And ND would be able to join either the SEC or ACC whenever they were ready.