Conference Realignment

[LT 1967]

I know we are all aware of the ''perception problem" of the ACC. One of the national narratives we always hear was how the Big 12 is the third best conference behind the SEC and Big10, always leaving the ACC either 4th or 5th in the pecking order of the power 5. I know how we would always see projections showing how the Big 12 would be several million dollars in revenue ahead of the ACC in future years.

The recently released conference distribution numbers seem to dispute this probability. The recently released Conference distribution numbers for the ACC and the Big12 indicate to me that the Big 12 would have a lot of work to do to catch and move ahead of the ACC. The Big 12 numbers include Texas and Oklahoma for 2023-2024. On a per team basis, I do not believe the four PAC 12
teams they are bringing in next year will make up for Texas and Oklahoma.

If the ACC can hold together, I know the Big 12 will not make more money from Bowls, NCAA BB, etc. than the ACC. Both distributions for 2023-2024 include 14 teams for both the ACC and Big 12.

See attached reports from the ACC and Big 12.

 

[stinger78]

It’s media markets. The ACC has Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte/Raleigh, Richmond/Norfolk, DC, Pittsburgh, Boston, Syracuse, Louisville, Columbia/Greenville, and Tallahassee. That’s a lot of “viewers,” whether they watch ACC sports or not. It’s worth a lot - almost the entire east coast. Oddly, two of the smaller markets are Columbia/Greenville and Tallahassee.

 

[billga99]

It’s media markets. The ACC has Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte/Raleigh, Richmond/Norfolk, DC, Pittsburgh, Boston, Syracuse, Louisville, Columbia/Greenville, and Tallahassee. That’s a lot of “viewers,” whether they watch ACC sports or not. It’s worth a lot - almost the entire east coast. Oddly, two of the smaller markets are Columbia/Greenville and Tallahassee.

Big 12 will not be too weak next year. Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Cincinnati, Orlando. Not as big as ACC but not shabby.

 

[augustabuzz]

Big 12 will not be too weak next year. Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Cincinnati, Orlando. Not as big as ACC but not shabby.

Do you know if California and Texas will be added to the ACC market?

 

[Techster]

It’s media markets. The ACC has Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte/Raleigh, Richmond/Norfolk, DC, Pittsburgh, Boston, Syracuse, Louisville, Columbia/Greenville, and Tallahassee. That’s a lot of “viewers,” whether they watch ACC sports or not. It’s worth a lot - almost the entire east coast. Oddly, two of the smaller markets are Columbia/Greenville and Tallahassee.

...and which ACC team resides in the South's largest market, and 2nd largest overall market in the ACC?

SMU is now the leader in market size in the ACC due to Dallas/Fort Worth (#5 overall), but Atlanta/GT (#6 overall) is only one spot behind SMU's market. You think the B1G wants a piece of Atlanta?

Something of interest happened this week. One of the SEC school's ADs recently said something that echoes what the SEC commissioner Sankey said a couple of months ago: SEC does NOT have rule about adding teams in the same market. As long as 3/4ths of the members vote yes, that's all that matters. IMO, they said that publicly for a reason: There will be new members invited (looking at you ACC teams) in order to protect SEC territory and interests. President Peterson, in his last interview about expansion, also hinted that conversations were had with the SEC (along with the B1G) back in 2012/2013. Hmm...

GT fans need to quit selling our team short. GT will be a player in the next round of expansion simply because of what Atlanta brings to a conference. This is a 50+ year decision for conferences, not a popularity contest. Atlanta and GT will have a home in the P2 once the ACC GOR is settled...either in 2027 or 2036. My bet is the B1G simply because of how well we fit in culturally, academically, and B1G's desire to bring other Southern schools in their conference map. Atlanta is also quickly becoming a "crown jewel" city similar to Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston...and by a LOT of metrics, Atlanta is already there.

 

[stinger78]

Many would argue that the SEC already owns the ATL market, having the bigger of the two Atlanta programs.

 

[billga99]

Many would argue that the SEC already owns the ATL market, having the bigger of the two Atlanta programs.

I would agree. But I don't think the SEC and ESPN would be happy to open up the Atlanta market to the Big 10.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I know we are all aware of the ''perception problem" of the ACC. One of the national narratives we always hear was how the Big 12 is the third best conference behind the SEC and Big10, always leaving the ACC either 4th or 5th in the pecking order of the power 5. I know how we would always see projections showing how the Big 12 would be several million dollars in revenue ahead of the ACC in future years.

The recently released conference distribution numbers seem to dispute this probability. The recently released Conference distribution numbers for the ACC and the Big12 indicate to me that the Big 12 would have a lot of work to do to catch and move ahead of the ACC. The Big 12 numbers include Texas and Oklahoma for 2023-2024. On a per team basis, I do not believe the four PAC 12
teams they are bringing in next year will make up for Texas and Oklahoma.

If the ACC can hold together, I know the Big 12 will not make more money from Bowls, NCAA BB, etc. than the ACC. Both distributions for 2023-2024 include 14 teams for both the ACC and Big 12.

See attached reports from the ACC and Big 12.

Outside of this message board, I've never heard this narrative mentioned. Most of my SEC/B1G friends will readily admit the ACC is the third best conference.

 

[roadkill]

...and which ACC team resides in the South's largest market, and 2nd largest overall market in the ACC?

SMU is now the leader in market size in the ACC due to Dallas/Fort Worth (#5 overall), but Atlanta/GT (#6 overall) is only one spot behind SMU's market. You think the B1G wants a piece of Atlanta?

Something of interest happened this week. One of the SEC school's ADs recently said something that echoes what the SEC commissioner Sankey said a couple of months ago: SEC does NOT have rule about adding teams in the same market. As long as 3/4ths of the members vote yes, that's all that matters. IMO, they said that publicly for a reason: There will be new members invited (looking at you ACC teams) in order to protect SEC territory and interests. President Peterson, in his last interview about expansion, also hinted that conversations were had with the SEC (along with the B1G) back in 2012/2013. Hmm...

GT fans need to quit selling our team short. GT will be a player in the next round of expansion simply because of what Atlanta brings to a conference. This is a 50+ year decision for conferences, not a popularity contest. Atlanta and GT will have a home in the P2 once the ACC GOR is settled...either in 2027 or 2036. My bet is the B1G simply because of how well we fit in culturally, academically, and B1G's desire to bring other Southern schools in their conference map. Atlanta is also quickly becoming a "crown jewel" city similar to Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston...and by a LOT of metrics, Atlanta is already there.

Perhaps these were forward-looking statements, but admitting Texas already set the precedent.

 

[iceeater1969]

...and which ACC team resides in the South's largest market, and 2nd largest overall market in the ACC?

SMU is now the leader in market size in the ACC due to Dallas/Fort Worth (#5 overall), but Atlanta/GT (#6 overall) is only one spot behind SMU's market. You think the B1G wants a piece of Atlanta?

Something of interest happened this week. One of the SEC school's ADs recently said something that echoes what the SEC commissioner Sankey said a couple of months ago: SEC does NOT have rule about adding teams in the same market. As long as 3/4ths of the members vote yes, that's all that matters. IMO, they said that publicly for a reason: There will be new members invited (looking at you ACC teams) in order to protect SEC territory and interests. President Peterson, in his last interview about expansion, also hinted that conversations were had with the SEC (along with the B1G) back in 2012/2013. Hmm...

GT fans need to quit selling our team short. GT will be a player in the next round of expansion simply because of what Atlanta brings to a conference. This is a 50+ year decision for conferences, not a popularity contest. Atlanta and GT will have a home in the P2 once the ACC GOR is settled...either in 2027 or 2036. My bet is the B1G simply because of how well we fit in culturally, academically, and B1G's desire to bring other Southern schools in their conference map. Atlanta is also quickly becoming a "crown jewel" city similar to Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston...and by a LOT of metrics, Atlanta is already there.

I hope u are right, and its Gt to b1g and not FSU and Clemson. The b1g would be betting on gt potential and as a gig at the SEC.

Would the SEC take them to lock down the north Florida and south Caroline market? B1G could use thier brand and location.

 

[yeti92]

Outside of this message board, I've never heard this narrative mentioned. Most of my SEC/B1G friends will readily admit the ACC is the third best conference.

Agreed, never heard anyone claim that. The closest claim I've heard is that the Big 12 is a more stable conference, which is true because nobody wants any of the teams in the Big 12 anymore whereas the ACC has teams that are viewed as valuable and some of those teams are fighting to leave.

 

[LT 1967]

Outside of this message board, I've never heard this narrative mentioned. Most of my SEC/B1G friends will readily admit the ACC is the third best conference.

I will see if I can support my contention. See Mark Bradley's article attached where he claims that the "Big 12 had Nosed ahead of the ACC as the third biggest conference". This is after the Big 12 had added only Colorado from the PAC 12.

On this thread, I have also seen a projection of future revenue by conference which shows the Big 12 moving ahead of the ACC over the next few years.
I believe that was a projection in Navigate. I have attached.

I certainly agree that the ACC is third best in terms of quality of Football. I will see if I can find a couple of additional samples of reporters trying to anoint the Big 12 as third, at least in terms of revenue.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I will see if I can support my contention. See Mark Bradley's article attached where he claims that the "Big 12 had Nosed ahead of the ACC as the third biggest conference". This is after the Big 12 had added only Colorado from the PAC 12.

On this thread, I have also seen a projection of future revenue by conference which shows the Big 12 moving ahead of the ACC over the next few years.
I believe that was a projection in Navigate. I have attached.

I certainly agree that the ACC is third best in terms of quality of Football. I will see if I can find a couple of additional samples of reporters trying to anoint the Big 12 as third, at least in terms of revenue.

Bradley's article was written before Stanford, Cal, and SMU joined. He also asked in that article what teams would want to join a conference like the ACC when other members wanted more TV money.

The second article you linked has us getting more money than the Big-12 starting in 2026. Also, we currently get more than them anyways so I am not sure where that chart is getting its numbers from.

 

[Randy Carson]

...and which ACC team resides in the South's largest market, and 2nd largest overall market in the ACC?

SMU is now the leader in market size in the ACC due to Dallas/Fort Worth (#5 overall), but Atlanta/GT (#6 overall) is only one spot behind SMU's market. You think the B1G wants a piece of Atlanta?

Something of interest happened this week. One of the SEC school's ADs recently said something that echoes what the SEC commissioner Sankey said a couple of months ago: SEC does NOT have rule about adding teams in the same market. As long as 3/4ths of the members vote yes, that's all that matters. IMO, they said that publicly for a reason: There will be new members invited (looking at you ACC teams) in order to protect SEC territory and interests. President Peterson, in his last interview about expansion, also hinted that conversations were had with the SEC (along with the B1G) back in 2012/2013. Hmm...

GT fans need to quit selling our team short. GT will be a player in the next round of expansion simply because of what Atlanta brings to a conference. This is a 50+ year decision for conferences, not a popularity contest. Atlanta and GT will have a home in the P2 once the ACC GOR is settled...either in 2027 or 2036. My bet is the B1G simply because of how well we fit in culturally, academically, and B1G's desire to bring other Southern schools in their conference map. Atlanta is also quickly becoming a "crown jewel" city similar to Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston...and by a LOT of metrics, Atlanta is already there.

I hope you're right. But listening to the YouTubers speculate about which team is going where, Tech is NEVER even mentioned.

 

[stinger 1957]

I hope you're right. But listening to the YouTubers speculate about which team is going where, Tech is NEVER even mentioned.

What I have seen by the speculators as to why certain teams end up in a certain conference tells me they have no clue to the criteria each of the big 2 use to determine where they go. The Big 10 has been very clear about their criteria for a long time now. Based on their criteria the ones I see most likely from the ACC are Miami, GT and UNC. Yes they would take ND in a heartbeat and I believe they eventually end up with ND, but who knows how long that takes. Could there be others, yes possibly, but I think that is a long shot at this point. Will there eventually be more from FL to the Big, yes I believe so. Follow the AAU schools would be my suggestion when you look at Florida. That would be Miami, U FL, S. FL. Until FSU gets an AAU designation I will not believe them to be a prospect for the Big 10, at least until the Big 10 criteria changes which I do not see happening.

 

[Richard7125]

Why would they want to do this? It could lead to more money and less exposure. It might not, but I think it is possible.

I am not saying that this will definitely happen, but I do think it is a very real possibility. If the Big10 and SEC become their own thing of P2, then a players' union would likely want to negotiate separately with them. If there are three levels, P2, subP2, and G5, then the union would likely want to negotiate separate deals with each group. Making the group larger would allow the negotiations to be with regard to the group, not the individual schools or smaller groups. It would allow the league to push for salary pool based on media revenue instead of based on total revenue. Another thing it could to is provide opportunities to areas/regions to be in contention. The NFL has proven that the model where every team has a chance at the beginning of the season raises interest and money for the group as a whole. The NFL schedule is based on previous year's records. When you play a team from another division, the top team in the division doesn't play the bottom team from another division. They play an equivalent team. Top teams play top teams. Bad teams play bad teams. Normal teams play normal teams. You end up with a lot of good games, instead of a lot of blowouts. It also means that almost every fan can look at their schedule at the beginning of the year and feel like their team has a chance. You don't get that excitement spread across the entire fan base in college football. It keeps people interested and excited even after their own team is eliminated.

I rambled a lot. As I said, I am not saying that this will happen. I am just responding to your question. There are some potential reasons that the Big10 and SEC might get involved in such a league. Potential to increase overall revenue, and potential to minimize obligations to players' unions.

I don't see the Big10/SEC sharing power or evenly distributing revenues with the ACC, Big12 or G5 to create some kind of NFL lite. I think a more likely scenario over the next 10 years is a loose consortium of P2, P3, P4 (or whatever) with leftovers to G5

Why would they want to do this? It could lead to more money and less exposure. It might not, but I think it is possible.

I am not saying that this will definitely happen, but I do think it is a very real possibility. If the Big10 and SEC become their own thing of P2, then a players' union would likely want to negotiate separately with them. If there are three levels, P2, subP2, and G5, then the union would likely want to negotiate separate deals with each group. Making the group larger would allow the negotiations to be with regard to the group, not the individual schools or smaller groups. It would allow the league to push for salary pool based on media revenue instead of based on total revenue. Another thing it could to is provide opportunities to areas/regions to be in contention. The NFL has proven that the model where every team has a chance at the beginning of the season raises interest and money for the group as a whole. The NFL schedule is based on previous year's records. When you play a team from another division, the top team in the division doesn't play the bottom team from another division. They play an equivalent team. Top teams play top teams. Bad teams play bad teams. Normal teams play normal teams. You end up with a lot of good games, instead of a lot of blowouts. It also means that almost every fan can look at their schedule at the beginning of the year and feel like their team has a chance. You don't get that excitement spread across the entire fan base in college football. It keeps people interested and excited even after their own team is eliminated.

I rambled a lot. As I said, I am not saying that this will happen. I am just responding to your question. There are some potential reasons that the Big10 and SEC might get involved in such a league. Potential to increase overall revenue, and potential to minimize obligations to players' unions.

My point was more that I don't see the Big10/SEC sharing revenues or power to even out the playing field (ie to create an NFL lite). I think a much more likely scenario (over the next 10 years) is a loose consortium of P2-4 conferences with larger percentages to Big10/SEC, middling percentages to Big12/ACC and a bone or two to G5 schools.

I think the new revenue growth in college football is not in conference media deals, but in the expanded playoffs. I look at some of the proposed structures of a 14 team playoff as evidence to uneven revenue distribution. One option is Big10/SEC getting 3 autobids, ACC/big12 getting 2 autobids, G5 getting 1 and 3 at larges (most at larges going to Big10/SEC schools). Another alternative was 5 auto-bids and 9 at-large (with the bulk going to Big10/SEC).

 

[RonJohn]

I don't see the Big10/SEC sharing power or evenly distributing revenues with the ACC, Big12 or G5 to create some kind of NFL lite. I think a more likely scenario over the next 10 years is a loose consortium of P2, P3, P4 (or whatever) with leftovers to G5

My point was more that I don't see the Big10/SEC sharing revenues or power to even out the playing field (ie to create an NFL lite). I think a much more likely scenario (over the next 10 years) is a loose consortium of P2-4 conferences with larger percentages to Big10/SEC, middling percentages to Big12/ACC and a bone or two to G5 schools.

I think the new revenue growth in college football is not in conference media deals, but in the expanded playoffs. I look at some of the proposed structures of a 14 team playoff as evidence to uneven revenue distribution. One option is Big10/SEC getting 3 autobids, ACC/big12 getting 2 autobids, G5 getting 1 and 3 at larges (most at larges going to Big10/SEC schools). Another alternative was 5 auto-bids and 9 at-large (with the bulk going to Big10/SEC).

I was only answering the question and pointing out reasons why the top two conferences might enter into a super league. I am not saying that they definitely will.

In my opinion, the uneven selections and uneven payouts for the playoffs will end up limiting revenue growth in the long run. I think the genius of the NFL methodology is the somewhat level playing field. The media money is evenly distributed, so each team has a chance to compete. The schedule is based on last year's results, so every team has a competitive schedule this year. At the beginning of the season, most teams' fans believe that their team has a good chance of being in the playoffs. The fans understand the playoff selection process. They know that at least one team they play during the season will be in the playoffs. When the playoffs begin, they cheer for their team, or they cheer for/against some of the teams that they watched during the season. The season starts with excitement, and even if your team doesn't make the playoffs, there is a team in the playoffs with a tie-in to your team. There is excitement and you follow the playoffs because of that. That excitement if formed over the season organically. For the college football playoffs, there have only been a few teams that had a chance to make it at the beginning of the season. Many teams' fans have known that their team had zero chance. Imagine if GT had gone undefeated last year. Would we have gotten in the playoffs? FSU is considered a bigger brand. They were undefeated and did not. Look at your description of the expanded playoffs. "5 auto-bids" --with the bulk of at-large going to the Big10/SEC. There is a large part of the fan base that believe their team has zero chance of making even the expanded playoffs. Sure, there were a lot of people who watched the national championship game, but is was only 20% of the people who watched the super bowl. I don't think the CFP can get as large as the NFL playoffs. I do think that the CFP is limiting it's growth potential by only having a handful of teams whose fans believe they actually have a chance.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Professional football is boring, in my opinion. I truly believe if not for fantasy football (and to a much lesser extent, gambling) pro football would have mediocre ratings. Just my opinion.

 

[rfjeff9]

Many would argue that the SEC already owns the ATL market, having the bigger of the two Atlanta programs.

Maybe, but even across the entire state, there are a lot of UGA first fans that will tune in and watch Tech as long as they don't play at the same time. You've all met them they're the ones that say "as long as they aren't playing Georgia I pull for GT." Those fans are more common in Atl. If B1G plants a flag in Atlanta, that number who will watch will go up, plus hopefully some ticket sales

Don't listen to anyone tell you markets don't matter anymore. They may matter less, but when it's the #6 in the nation, growing exponentially, and a major hub - it matters. Especially if there is a school right in the middle of it that is a perfect fit on all levels.

 

[Richard7125]

I think the super-league for football has a lot of merit, but I don't think that will be pursued by the conferences. I think that is more likely to be pursued by the individual football super-brands (Texas, Alabama, etc) so they don't have to share revenues with the Vandys and Northwesterns. The Big10/SEC "conferences" can't really kickout the crappy brands. I think there will be a lot of internal pressure from the Big10/SEC to keep the current conference structure intact.