Conference Realignment

[UpperNorth]

Who / when? Honest question. I would like to know the schools and circumstances.

Temple was voted out of Big East in ‘01. https://temple-news.com/temple-football-ousted-from-big-east/

 

[ibeattetris]

Sure if ACC can poach TAM that would be terrific. I don't see this as particularly likely. Wouldn't they be taking a big pay hit?

I just assumed the whole post was satire at that point.

 

[CEB]

Temple was voted out of Big East in ‘01. https://temple-news.com/temple-football-ousted-from-big-east/

Wow... I had forgotten that! Seems crazy that could happen, but I guess every conference has to have bylaws that must allow for removal of a team. Hard to believe it would happen for performance (not some sort of violation), but two votes to stay is a pretty low bar.... assuming Temple was still a voting member at the time, that means the entire conference was unanimous against them.

 

[GT_05]

Maybe the ACC can snag Vandy. Their coach has a goal of being “elite”.

 

[UgaBlows]

I keep reading that 8 ACC teams can vote together to dissolve the conference, does anyone know if that is true?

 

[UgaBlows]

BYU is an interesting school. HUGE following due to the Mormon faith, and they have national brand recognition. Adding Utah + BYU gives the ACC an interesting sectional rivalry and a HUGE audience.

A BYU + Notre Dame game would also be huge because of what each school represents to their fanbase.

Texas teams are an interesting play because of the markets. I wonder if the ACC would at least try to contact TX A&M because of the their displeasure with the SEC and UTexas. We can bring in a TX Tech or TCU to help TX A&M with natural in-state rivalry. TX A&M would absolutely bring up the value of the ACC contract, while also giving A&M an easier path to the playoffs and national championship.

Honestly, a conference with TX A&M, Clemson, FSU, Oregon, ND would compete with the B1G. I don't think we'd be as top heavy as the SEC with 'Bama/UGA/LSU/UF/etc, but we have enough good teams and brands that we'd be a close to the level of the B1G with a broader national appeal.

Everything is cyclical. Who's to say the ACC teams don't click for a while and we're looked at as "Power" conference along the lines of the B1G and SEC one day.

It sounds great but Do you honestly think anyone in charge at the ACC could make a deal of this magnitude happen? Or anykind of a good deal?

 

[bobongo]

I keep reading that 8 ACC teams can vote together to dissolve the conference, does anyone know if that is true?

I would imagine so, because by NCAA rules there have to be at least 7 schools to make a Div. I conference, and 14-8=6 if my arithmetic is correct. If 8 simply drop out of the conference, it ceases to exist.

 

[gameface]

It sounds great but Do you honestly think anyone in charge at the ACC could make a deal of this magnitude happen? Or anykind of a good deal?

BYU is an interesting school. HUGE following due to the Mormon faith, and they have national brand recognition. Adding Utah + BYU gives the ACC an interesting sectional rivalry and a HUGE audience.

A BYU + Notre Dame game would also be huge because of what each school represents to their fanbase.

BYU wont play on Sunday so that messes up baseball and basketball schedules.

 

[Techster]

It sounds great but Do you honestly think anyone in charge at the ACC could make a deal of this magnitude happen? Or anykind of a good deal?

Nope.

Not enough big thinkers in the ACC office. Their biggest play was a desperate GOR agreement and a media deal that gets worse and worse by the year.

 

[Richard7125]

This is what I wrote earlier in the thread:



ACC would not be absorbing the PAC 12 or the Big 12, the ACC would cherry pick some of the best "brands" in college sports located in high value media markets. Strategically, it would also isolate the B1G's West Coast play of adding USC/UCLA, while offering the ACC a whole new market to truly expand the conference brand. Those teams I listed have some of the largest followings on the West Coast.

Pac-12 TV ratings data: Oregon, USC and Washington generate the top-rated games

TV ratings from the past five (normal) seasons underscore a key point impacting every aspect of Pac-12 football: The conference needs USC, Oregon and Washington to be relevant on the national scene, consistently and concurrently.

www.seattletimes.com

Look at the ratings from the last few seasons. Washington, Oregon, and Utah are ascendant brands on the West Coast. Oregon is a national brand with Nike marketing muscle behind them (which is crazy to think B1G turned that down). Stanford is a Notre Dame play...it's one of ND's most cherished rivals. It's a card the ACC can play not to convince them to become a full member of the ACC (which they will not do), but leverage more football games which means a bigger per year media contract. Colorado and Arizona are in some of the fastest growing markets in the country.

It would also provide the ACC with nationally compelling matchups in football and basketball. Clemson vs Oregon. Washington vs FSU. GT vs Stanford. Utah vs Miami. The equation of teams totally changes, and gives the ACC new blood with teams that are nationally relevant, but also have the ability to become national powers.

This move is about the next 10-50 years...it's not about the next few years. In the next 10 years, there's a projected $50+ million dollar/year gap between B1G/SEC schools and everyone else. Hopefully, this merger would help the ACC renegotiate new media contracts. Not just with ESPN, but other streaming providers looking to grow their media inventory (think Apple/Amazon Video/etc.). I don't think the ACC gets the $100+ million per school projected payout the SEC/B1G schools get, but hopefully we can close the gap to $10-20 million per year as opposed to $50 million currently projected.

The Pac12 currently distributes $34m/year to their schools (that's with USC and UCLA). That value will go down when USC and UCLA leave. The ACC currently distributes $36m/year to their schools. I understand your point, but the math doesn't work. Adding lesser values and dividing by the larger number reduces the payout per school. More schools in a conference does not equal better or more stability.

 

[RonJohn]

The Pac12 currently distributes $34m/year to their schools (that's with USC and UCLA). That value will go down when USC and UCLA leave. The ACC currently distributes $36m/year to their schools. I understand your point, but the math doesn't work. Adding lesser values and dividing by the larger number reduces the payout per school. More schools in a conference does not equal better or more stability.

People still won't believe that TV revenue is driven in a very large part by subscriber fees instead of ad revenue. ESPN's ad revenue has been as low as 21% of their total revenue. The picture below is the average of cable networks. In 2018 only 36% of all cable network revenue was from ads. Local over-the-air stations have had ad income decrease and cable/sat subscriber fees now make up about one third of their revenue.

Eyeballs and ads matter, but with ESPN it only matters 20%, while number of TV households matters 80%. Adding Washington, Oregon, and Utah to the ACC would increase the subscriber base, but I don't know if it would be enough to match or increase the ACC payout. Adding teams based on current flashiness of the football team is not a good strategy. Team strengths rise and lower. Louisville was a very flashy football team when they joined the ACC. They aren't now. You shouldn't base a 20 year decision on which matchups you would like to see next year.

 

[UgaBlows]

Team strengths rise and lower. Louisville was a very flashy football team when they joined the ACC. They aren't now.

Thats one of the side-affects of Joining the ACC, sooner (Miami) or later (FSU)

 

[GT_05]

People still won't believe that TV revenue is driven in a very large part by subscriber fees instead of ad revenue. ESPN's ad revenue has been as low as 21% of their total revenue. The picture below is the average of cable networks. In 2018 only 36% of all cable network revenue was from ads. Local over-the-air stations have had ad income decrease and cable/sat subscriber fees now make up about one third of their revenue.

Eyeballs and ads matter, but with ESPN it only matters 20%, while number of TV households matters 80%. Adding Washington, Oregon, and Utah to the ACC would increase the subscriber base, but I don't know if it would be enough to match or increase the ACC payout. Adding teams based on current flashiness of the football team is not a good strategy. Team strengths rise and lower. Louisville was a very flashy football team when they joined the ACC. They aren't now. You shouldn't base a 20 year decision on which matchups you would like to see next year.

If you randomly picked two SEC teams to play one another in any season over the past 20 years, chances are you would get at least a decent game with quite a few viewers. It’s quite the opposite for the ACC. Over that time period, has the ACC had more than three or four teams playing really good ball at the same time? Not that I remember.

 

[Techster]

The Pac12 currently distributes $34m/year to their schools (that's with USC and UCLA). That value will go down when USC and UCLA leave. The ACC currently distributes $36m/year to their schools. I understand your point, but the math doesn't work. Adding lesser values and dividing by the larger number reduces the payout per school. More schools in a conference does not equal better or more stability.

The first part is why it's a good time to go after the PAC12 teams I named. If you click on the link, outside of USC, Oregon/Washington/Utah dominate the ratings on the West Coast. Those are all flagship schools for their states, and they all have VERY good programs. Oregon is probably more popular than USC nationally at this point. Oregon is backed by MASSIVE amounts of money by Phil Knight/Nike...a relationship conferences would be dumb not to exploit. IMO, this most definitely increases the value of the ACC's media bargaining power.

This isn't just about more schools, this is about strategic additions to the ACC that can fortify our conference, while growing the ACC brand...and by extension, growing the fanbase of the schools in the ACC. Outside of the LA market, the addition of Arizona as well locks up the West Coast for the ACC with all the largest state schools on the West Coast. As @RonJohn states, this isn't about what's cool now, it's about the next 20-50 years.

 

[CEB]

People still won't believe that TV revenue is driven in a very large part by subscriber fees instead of ad revenue. ESPN's ad revenue has been as low as 21% of their total revenue. The picture below is the average of cable networks. In 2018 only 36% of all cable network revenue was from ads. Local over-the-air stations have had ad income decrease and cable/sat subscriber fees now make up about one third of their revenue.

Eyeballs and ads matter, but with ESPN it only matters 20%, while number of TV households matters 80%. Adding Washington, Oregon, and Utah to the ACC would increase the subscriber base, but I don't know if it would be enough to match or increase the ACC payout. Adding teams based on current flashiness of the football team is not a good strategy. Team strengths rise and lower. Louisville was a very flashy football team when they joined the ACC. They aren't now. You shouldn't base a 20 year decision on which matchups you would like to see next year.

Just a hypothetical...

The ACC has 15 teams. ND deal is weird so let’s just throw them out. ACC has 14 full members making $36M / year and we are wanting to get another $20M / year to close the gap with BIGSECY teams.

$20M x14 = $280M / year to get the rest of the conference to $56M. THEN, the four teams coming in want the same payout... another $224M. Big round number, those four teams have to be worth $125M each annually to move the needle like that.

Similar math for BIG... assume each school gets a $20M bump, that’s $280M. They’re already making $50M plus each and UCLA and USC will want that $70M too... that’s $420M total. UCLA and USC are worth $220M a piece, annually?!?

I don’t do anything media related nor do I claim to know a thing about subscriber fees and ad revenues but I just can’t believe current contracts are that undervalued! If the numbers are moving that fast, the ACC ought to be able to threaten to blow it up and get more money without adding or subtracting anyone. They also should get a renegotiation of the term... no one should be agreeing to more than a five year deal, right? BIG may renegotiate twice before our GOR runs out!

 

[Techster]

Sure if ACC can poach TAM that would be terrific. I don't see this as particularly likely. Wouldn't they be taking a big pay hit?

I would give the ACC less than 10-20% shot at getting TAMU to jump to the ACC. The thing is, you don't know if you don't ask. Not asking is like being scared to ask the pretty girl out, or not asking your boss for a raise. Maybe you get a "yes", maybe you don't...but if you don't ask that's on you and it's definitely a "NO". Is it a crazy idea? Yes, but people who don't think outside the box and aren't imaginative about solutions are the ones who get passed by...and right now, SEC and B1G are lapping everyone because they are thinking big while everyone is just trying to survive. Trying to survive and not thinking big is what got GT stuck in the ACC and not taking the B1G's offer.

TAMU would most certainly increase the ACC media revenue. Adding Oregon/Stanford/Washington/Utah/and Arizona in conjunction with TAMU makes the ACC MUCH more attractive than where we are now. It's the whole "sum of their parts" situation. The reason I brought up TAMU is because they were LIVID by the way the SEC treated them and they thought the SEC would "protect" their state of Texas advantage by not inviting UTexas. If the ACC can close the revenue gap closer to +/-$10 million differrence than the SEC, the ACC becomes a viable option for TAMU because it's a an easier path to the playoffs and national championship than what's going to happen in the SEC. TAMU has one of the largest, if not he largest, NIL collectives. They also have one of the biggest athletic departments in terms of revenue. Would they trade $10 million for an easier path to the playoffs, and not having to play "little brother" to UTexas again? That's on the ACC to prove it to them.

 

[bobongo]

People still won't believe that TV revenue is driven in a very large part by subscriber fees instead of ad revenue. ESPN's ad revenue has been as low as 21% of their total revenue. The picture below is the average of cable networks. In 2018 only 36% of all cable network revenue was from ads. Local over-the-air stations have had ad income decrease and cable/sat subscriber fees now make up about one third of their revenue.

Eyeballs and ads matter, but with ESPN it only matters 20%, while number of TV households matters 80%. Adding Washington, Oregon, and Utah to the ACC would increase the subscriber base, but I don't know if it would be enough to match or increase the ACC payout. Adding teams based on current flashiness of the football team is not a good strategy. Team strengths rise and lower. Louisville was a very flashy football team when they joined the ACC. They aren't now. You shouldn't base a 20 year decision on which matchups you would like to see next year.

ESPN gets $1.30 per subscriber for the SEC Network in the SEC footprint. How much does ESPN get per subscriber for the ACC Network?
I know it's less than they get for the SEC network because viewers are fewer and the average ratings are lower.

 

[bobongo]

I would give the ACC less than 10-20% shot at getting TAMU to jump to the ACC. The thing is, you don't know if you don't ask. Not asking is like being scared to ask the pretty girl out, or not asking your boss for a raise.

I reckon, but I still can't imagine why they'd say, "yes".

 

[RonJohn]

ESPN gets $1.30 per subscriber for the SEC Network in the SEC footprint. How much does ESPN get per subscriber for the ACC Network?
I know it's less than they get for the SEC network because viewers are fewer and the average ratings are lower.

I haven't seen any estimates for the ACCN. The estimate of $1.30 per subscriber for SEC Network was from back in 2014 when the station started. It was likely on a schedule to rise instead of staying flat. Even more likely is that the rate has increased as new contract negotiations with providers expired and were renegotiated.

The rate doesn't really have anything to do with viewers. Cable/sat companies could care less how many people watch an individual station. It has more to do with how many subscribers would leave if the station isn't included in their package. From the way Comcast dealt with the ACCN, not very many people will leave if the ACCN isn't in their package.

 

[bobongo]

The rate doesn't really have anything to do with viewers. Cable/sat companies could care less how many people watch an individual station. It has more to do with how many subscribers would leave if the station isn't included in their package. From the way Comcast dealt with the ACCN, not very many people will leave if the ACCN isn't in their package.

Same difference. Fewer people would leave because fewer people are watching.