Conference Realignment

[Vespidae]

Which is why I preceded this entire discussion with: …if the ACC can raise their game a certain amount….” If GT, VPI, Louisville, Pitt, BC, Miami - and now SMU and Stanford - really needing only about 4-5 of those 8 programs per year to go with Clemson, FSU, NCSU, and UNC (along with ND), then the inventory is there… if the next lookin allows renegotiation and if The Narrative doesn’t squeeze them out, we’re not that far away.

Yeah, we are far away. Viewership is driven first by installed base (and growth rate) and second by record. Large state schools drive the base. I've seen numbers where s 7-5 LSU team is a better ad sell than say, an undefeated TCU team.

Winning helps, don't get me wrong. But to drive $, you have to change a lot of structural factors. Simply put, the ACC operates at a big disadvantage to both the SEC and the B1G.

 

[rfjeff9]

There is another alternative: for the ACC to up its play. I believe that GT, Louisville, VPI, Miami, and Syracuse, and maybe BC and Pitt, are all on the upswing. Clemson and F$u are already at or near the top, and NCSU and UNCheat are getting there. If it happens that those latter four can stay there and if 4 of the 7 named at the top can make that step up, that the ACC could have 8 teams consistently pressing for the top 25. It has happened before, but we always let it slip away.

Imagine if the ACC had F$u, Clem, NCSU, UNCheat, GT, VPI, and Pitt all vying for a top 25 spot. Guys, we were there in 2009-10. F$U was under Jimbo and had Jameis, Clem was playing us in the ACC CG, we beat a top 5 VPI at BDS, NCSU had Russell Wilson, and Pitt was a very tough out. Here's the records of those ACC teams from 2008 to 2012:

F$u: 9-4, 7-6, 10-4, 9-4, 12-2
Clem: 7-6, 9-5, 6-7, 10-4, 11-2
NCSU: 6-7, 5-7, 9-4, 8-5, 7-6
UNC: 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 7-6, 8-4
GT: 9-4, 11-3, 6-7, 8-5, 7-6
VPI: 10-4, 10-3, 11-3, 11-3, 7-6
Pitt: 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 6-7, 6-7

In 2014 alone, here were the records:
FSU 13-1
GT 11-3
Clemson 10-3
Dook 9-4
Louisville 9-4
NCSU 8-5

Here's the SECheat in 2014:
Bama 12-2
Missouri 11-3
UGA 10-3
Miss State 10-3
Ole Miss 9-4
Auburn 8-5
LSU 8-5
TAMU 8-5

The conference is not that far off. If it were to see those 6 teams continue to climb, might we see an increase in media rights at the next look-in?

 

[forensicbuzz]

Yeah, we are far away. Viewership is driven first by installed base (and growth rate) and second by record. Large state schools drive the base. I've seen numbers where s 7-5 LSU team is a better ad sell than say, an undefeated TCU team.

Winning helps, don't get me wrong. But to drive $, you have to change a lot of structural factors. Simply put, the ACC operates at a big disadvantage to both the SEC and the B1G.

But not the Big12

 

[iceeater1969]

If the acc loses top 6 teams and becomes the College Presidents Conference, it will be like the analogy = if a tree falls in a forrest but no one is listening, does it make a sound?

A week ago was eating in the Norte Dame room of local restaurant. Posted on walls w l record for the many ND champion seasons. Lots of games between them and Purdue, gt. There were other fine academic schools who long ago dropped out of competitive football.

 

[stinger78]

Yeah, we are far away. Viewership is driven first by installed base (and growth rate) and second by record. Large state schools drive the base. I've seen numbers where s 7-5 LSU team is a better ad sell than say, an undefeated TCU team.

Winning helps, don't get me wrong. But to drive $, you have to change a lot of structural factors. Simply put, the ACC operates at a big disadvantage to both the SEC and the B1G.

The biggest of which is The Narrative. The SECheat is the ACC’s main competitor for the hearts and minds of football fans.

The first major issue the ACC has to contend with is perception. It would help if sEcSPN would stop pimping the SECheat and treat the two conferences equitably.

The second major issue is the ACC schools themselves. I personally think this is what FSU and Clemson are concerned about. As a group, the ACC tends to see athletics as an adjunct to academics, or at most an equal, but academics drives the bus. As a result, donations, salaries, and facilities lag the SECheat. The SECheat schools, as a group, don’t care two hoots about academics. It’s on the bus but certainly not driving it.

The third major issue the ACC faces is her fans. The athletic inferiority complex on the football field is nauseating, really. I think this is what CPJ was referring to when he made the “punch them in the face” comment about mutt fans. ACC fans generally don’t think that about their basketball and it shows. Nobody intimidates an ACC basketball team on the court… and to be sure, there’s been a negative narrative cooking about ACC basketball now, too. Several here have bought into that, too. But the ACC programs just keep on performing. When the fans stop acting subservient to the SECheat in football, it will begin to change. You know why? Donations will go up, salaries will rise and attract the best coaches, and university leaders will change.

Ga Tech’s president already has. He’s leading the charge! How long has it been since a GT pres was this vocal about athletics? Not in my lifetime. The ACC is not too far away, certainly not as far as the negative Nancies on this board want it to be.

Just my $.02 worth.

 

[orientalnc]

 

[Root4GT]

The biggest of which is The Narrative. The SECheat is the ACC’s main competitor for the hearts and minds of football fans.

The first major issue the ACC has to contend with is perception. It would help if sEcSPN would stop pimping the SECheat and treat the two conferences equitably.

The second major issue is the ACC schools themselves. I personally think this is what FSU and Clemson are concerned about. As a group, the ACC tends to see athletics as an adjunct to academics, or at most an equal, but academics drives the bus. As a result, donations, salaries, and facilities lag the SECheat. The SECheat schools, as a group, don’t care two hoots about academics. It’s on the bus but certainly not driving it.

The third major issue the ACC faces is her fans. The athletic inferiority complex on the football field is nauseating, really. I think this is what CPJ was referring to when he made the “punch them in the face” comment about mutt fans. ACC fans generally don’t think that about their basketball and it shows. Nobody intimidates an ACC basketball team on the court… and to be sure, there’s been a negative narrative cooking about ACC basketball now, too. Several here have bought into that, too. But the ACC programs just keep on performing. When the fans stop acting subservient to the SECheat in football, it will begin to change. You know why? Donations will go up, salaries will rise and attract the best coaches, and university leaders will change.

Ga Tech’s president already has. He’s leading the charge! How long has it been since a GT pres was this vocal about athletics? Not in my lifetime. The ACC is not too far away, certainly not as far as the negative Nancies on this board want it to be.

Just my $.02 worth.

The large number of smaller Private Schools in the ACC clearly hurts the ACC in football support and perception. If the SEC traded out 4 major schools for 4 more Vanderbilts they would have had a lesser perception for decades. Same for the B1G and Northwestern. That simply won't change with Cuse, BC, Wake, Duke, SMU, Miami and Stanford in the conference. None produce huge Alumni / fan bases that are diehard football fans. Miami has had a huge National following but that was decades ago. Even then the fans turned on them quickly if they lost 2 or more games.

The ACC is at a "Structural" disadvantage vs both the SEC and the B1G as those two Conferences are primarily are comprised of "The" State Flagship Universities. Even the "large State Universities" in the ACC are not "The State University."
-Kentucky vs Louisville
-South Carolina vs Clemson
-Georgia vs GT
-Florida vs FSU
-Penn State vs Pitt

And the Beat Goes On!

 

[cpf2001]

You have to win for long and consistently encourage to turn that into non-alumni fans.

The SEC/Big10 consolidation strategy is a great power play but if you’ve chopped the number of schools who generate alumni who care about CFB in half you’ve really shrank your future fan funnel outside of alumni and smaller states without as much pro competition.

Win a bunch to capture local kids while they’re 10-16 and you might hook them. Have a few good years now and then and it’s a lot tougher (both TCU and to a lesser extend GT have been in this boat).

But outside of Southern/Midwestern lifers and alumni of 40 schools or so, who’s gonna be a CFB fan in 40 years if you shrink the pool?

Who’s today’s kid from Dallas gonna give a crap about? What does that do to your future SEC game ad rates?

Now, if the Big 10 starts kicking out Midwest programs and diversifies geographically, I’ll be more optimistic about their long term plan leading to growth.

 

[LT 1967]

A little more about Clemson and FSU possibly considering the Big 12.

The New Big 12 does not have any Marquee teams like FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT. They have no teams with the Football Heritage or National Championships that are comparable to FSU, Clemson, Miami, and Georgia Tech. They have no TV network. They have 3 recently promoted G5 teams. Yet, they have a new TV contract that is comparable to the ACC. This tells me that the Big 12 is under better and more aggressive leadership than the ACC. Yormark is very familiar with the working of the TV Networks. I do understand that the problem with the current ACC (2036) media deal lies with the previous ACC Administration of John Swofford. Phillips was dealt a bad hand concerning the TV deal. However, I don't believe Phillips is aggressive enough in defending and promoting the ACC or dealing forcefully enough with ESPN.

The NEW Big 12 contract is with ESPN(60%) and Fox(40%). I believe this helps the Big12 as opposed to the ALL ESPN deal the ACC has. Particularly since the ESPN Executives allow their reporters to continually degrade the ACC with whom they have a contract. I don't hear the same criticism from ESPN about the Big 12. I think having FOX as part of their deal helps balance the propaganda put out by ESPN.

The new Big 12 Contract is a 6-year deal which expires in 2030-31. FSU and Clemson may believe they can break the ACC's GOR over the next 2 or 3 years, join the Big 12 and arrive in time to get a Serious increase in media distribution when the next Big 12 Contract is negotiated in 2031. Since the current Big 12 deal is already close to the ACC contract without FSU and Clemson, Yormark will obviously demand a major increase from ESPN and Fox after their arrival in the conference. I believe he will play Fox and ESPN off each other for priority inventory. The addition of FSU and Clemson would give him major leverage for a significant increase.

Obviously, this all depends on the B1G and SEC not wanting FSU and Clemson. I am beginning to believe that the SEC and B1G do not plan further expansion.

If the B1G moves South, I still believe they will invite Georgia Tech and Miami.

 

[iceeater1969]

The BIG 12 leadership is active but as you point out its mostly hand waving.

They may get fsu and clemson but only by agreeing to give them bigger %.

As i understand acc with its GOR is holding out for "equal for each no matter how small thier ratings till 2036 " .

 

[RonJohn]

The BIG 12 leadership is active but as you point out its mostly hand waving.

They may get fsu and clemson but only by agreeing to give them bigger %.

As i understand acc with its GOR is holding out for "equal for each no matter how small thier ratings till 2036 " .

I'm not sure I understand your belief that there is a contractual obligation to have equal pay. The ESPN contract most likely doesn't have anything like that in it. They pay the ACC for content that the ACC owns. There is zero reason for the ESPN contract to have anything in it about how the ACC distributes money. The GOR has nothing in it about equal pay. I have read it and there is nothing in there about equal pay.

The big issue is that you have to have a majority of the ACC to agree to change the revenue distribution. I haven't read the bylaws in a while, but I believe it would take a 2/3rds super majority. That would mean 12 out of 18 schools would have to vote for the uneven distribution. FSU has not been petitioning for a merit-based distribution. They are petitioning to have FSU receive more compensation, no matter what metric is used. They have been stating that the difference in the ACC vs the SEC is $50-60 million per year. That is mis-stated. Last year it was around $10 million. It will be $50-60 by 2030 if nothing changes in the ACC contract, but that isn't how FSU is stating things. How would you feel if GT votes to take $8 million less per year so that Clemson and FSU get an extra $50 million each per year, with no possible way for GT's revenue to increase? No other fan base would be happy with that either. That would make every other team in the ACC less valuable. FSU and Clemson would still leave around 2030 because they have become more valuable, and every other team in the ACC less valuable. I believe that doing so would not improve the chances of the ACC surviving, it would actually guarantee the demise.

I have stated before, and still believe that in the next several years there will be enormous change in the college football landscape. I think it is far more likely that somewhere around 2030, the conferences that we know will cease to exist as they do now. Not that teams will migrate among the conferences, but that the entire system will change. A non-NCAA league split into divisions will form, and the current conference affiliations will simply disappear.

 

[iceeater1969]

I'm not sure I understand your belief that there is a contractual obligation to have equal pay. The ESPN contract most likely doesn't have anything like that in it. They pay the ACC for content that the ACC owns. There is zero reason for the ESPN contract to have anything in it about how the ACC distributes money. The GOR has nothing in it about equal pay. I have read it and there is nothing in there about equal pay.

The big issue is that you have to have a majority of the ACC to agree to change the revenue distribution. I haven't read the bylaws in a while, but I believe it would take a 2/3rds super majority. That would mean 12 out of 18 schools would have to vote for the uneven distribution. FSU has not been petitioning for a merit-based distribution. They are petitioning to have FSU receive more compensation, no matter what metric is used. They have been stating that the difference in the ACC vs the SEC is $50-60 million per year. That is mis-stated. Last year it was around $10 million. It will be $50-60 by 2030 if nothing changes in the ACC contract, but that isn't how FSU is stating things. How would you feel if GT votes to take $8 million less per year so that Clemson and FSU get an extra $50 million each per year, with no possible way for GT's revenue to increase? No other fan base would be happy with that either. That would make every other team in the ACC less valuable. FSU and Clemson would still leave around 2030 because they have become more valuable, and every other team in the ACC less valuable. I believe that doing so would not improve the chances of the ACC surviving, it would actually guarantee the demise.

I have stated before, and still believe that in the next several years there will be enormous change in the college football landscape. I think it is far more likely that somewhere around 2030, the conferences that we know will cease to exist as they do now. Not that teams will migrate among the conferences, but that the entire system will change. A non-NCAA league split into divisions will form, and the current conference affiliations will simply disappear.

So does acc equally split the espn tv money?

 

[RonJohn]

So does acc equally split the espn tv money?

I am not 100% certain, but I believe it is split evenly. Before last year there was some unevenness in revenue split, but it had to do with bowl allowances and things like that. Last year the conference voted to give "incentive" bonuses to schools that achieve post-season success. (or at least I think that is what the agreement was.)

I found an article from the Athletic from last year that discussed FSU's demand for more pay. The article highlighted that the only P5 conference to actually do that was the Big12. They did in around 2007 to try to keep A&M, TX, and Oklahoma in the conference. A&M left early. TX and Oklahoma left recently. The Big12 even proposed giving a much larger share of revenue to TX and Oklahoma if they would remain in the Big12. It didn't work. The rest of the conference sacrificed for 16 years, and still ended up losing out. People on Twitter are proclaiming that the Big12 is a much better conference than the ACC, and that they are only a half step behind the Big10 and SEC. However, they make less revenue than the ACC. They have a large number of former G5 schools. They have no powerhouse football teams. I think it is laughable to believe that the Big12 is far superior to the ACC. They are a shell of their former selves, and giving in to TX for everything that TX wanted did ZERO to prevent that.

I also think you are missing what FSU wants. They want as much media money as UF gets, period. They don't care about any metrics other than FSU vs UF. They will not be happy unless they get as much money as UF. Any metric that is used to determine money distribution will not be acceptable if in a couple of years FSU declines and makes less than UF. It has nothing to do with popularity, TV Viewership, donated money, etc. It only has to do with FSU wanting more than everybody else.

If the ACC does not give in and keeps relatively equal revenue splits, the conference might fail in 5-10 years. If the ACC does give in and pay FSU more than everyone else, the conference will certainly fail in 5-10 years.

 

[Vespidae]

I also think you are missing what FSU wants. They want as much media money as UF gets, period. They don't care about any metrics other than FSU vs UF.

You don‘t need to leave the conference to do that. The UC Board of Regents told UCLA to pay Cal $10M a year as a result of the Bruins' move to the Big Ten and Cal's reduced revenue share in the ACC. The Florida Board of Regents could do likewise and this whole process becomes unnecessary.

 

[RonJohn]

You don‘t need to leave the conference to do that. The UC Board of Regents told UCLA to pay Cal $10M a year as a result of the Bruins' move to the Big Ten and Cal's reduced revenue share in the ACC. The Florida Board of Regents could do likewise and this whole process becomes unnecessary.

There is as much chance of that as there is of the Georgia BOR or Georgia legislature to tell the mutts to pay money to GT to even out the athletic revenue.

EDIT: I also believe that FSU wants out of the conference eventually no matter what. When they are able to, they will leave. It is kind of like having a wife who wants to leave the marriage, and the husband capitulating to everything that she wants. She ends up leaving anyway and he is broke and broken.

 

[Vespidae]

There is as much chance of that as there is of the Georgia BOR or Georgia legislature to tell the mutts to pay money to GT to even out the athletic revenue.

EDIT: I also believe that FSU wants out of the conference eventually no matter what. When they are able to, they will leave. It is kind of like having a wife who wants to leave the marriage, and the husband capitulating to everything that she wants. She ends up leaving anyway and he is broke and broken.

Perhaps they should. They are both state institutions. It would be refreshing to actually see leadership in college football.

 

[iceeater1969]

There is as much chance of that as there is of the Georgia BOR or Georgia legislature to tell the mutts to pay money to GT to even out the athletic revenue.

EDIT: I also believe that FSU wants out of the conference eventually no matter what. When they are able to, they will leave. It is kind of like having a wife who wants to leave the marriage, and the husband capitulating to everything that she wants. She ends up leaving anyway and he is broke and broken.

Didn't SMU join ACC with no claim on existing TV money.

BASED ON PERFORMANCE, the players are NIL ed $ and Some level of education. The coaches,are paid on performance. The tv event producers are paid by advertisers based on eyeballs.

When i looked at Knight data base, gt gets same tv money as fsu / clemson who support tnthier team w much higher donations and ticket sales.

 

[RonJohn]

Didn't SMU join ACC with no claim on existing TV money.

BASED ON PERFORMANCE, the players are NIL ed $ and Some level of education. The coaches,are paid on performance. The tv event producers are paid by advertisers based on eyeballs.

When i looked at Knight data base, gt gets same tv money as fsu / clemson who support tnthier team w much higher donations and ticket sales.

SMU wanted to be in a P4 conference and was willing to pay to get into it. What does that have to do with this discussion?

Texas got paid more than others in the Big12, but left anyway. The NFL is a good example of how evenly splitting media revenue can improve the entire system for all. Taking a paycut to give more to Clemson and FSU would ensure that the gap gets bigger between those schools and the rest of the conference. They would end up leaving BECAUSE the rest of the conference isn't keeping up. The rest of the conference would have a hard time getting into a better conference because they made themselves less valuable by taking a paycut. There is no scenario where giving FSU significantly more money helps anyone else in the ACC.

You must be looking at a different Knight database than I am. The one I look at doesn't show the conference payout. It has a "NCAA/Conference Distributions, Media Rights, and Post-Season Football" category. In 2023, Clemson had $47 million in that category, FSU had $49 million in that category, and GT had $55 million in that category. What specific data in the database are you looking at?

 

[roadkill]

I am not 100% certain, but I believe it is split evenly. Before last year there was some unevenness in revenue split, but it had to do with bowl allowances and things like that. Last year the conference voted to give "incentive" bonuses to schools that achieve post-season success. (or at least I think that is what the agreement was.)

I found an article from the Athletic from last year that discussed FSU's demand for more pay. The article highlighted that the only P5 conference to actually do that was the Big12. They did in around 2007 to try to keep A&M, TX, and Oklahoma in the conference. A&M left early. TX and Oklahoma left recently. The Big12 even proposed giving a much larger share of revenue to TX and Oklahoma if they would remain in the Big12. It didn't work. The rest of the conference sacrificed for 16 years, and still ended up losing out. People on Twitter are proclaiming that the Big12 is a much better conference than the ACC, and that they are only a half step behind the Big10 and SEC. However, they make less revenue than the ACC. They have a large number of former G5 schools. They have no powerhouse football teams. I think it is laughable to believe that the Big12 is far superior to the ACC. They are a shell of their former selves, and giving in to TX for everything that TX wanted did ZERO to prevent that.

I also think you are missing what FSU wants. They want as much media money as UF gets, period. They don't care about any metrics other than FSU vs UF. They will not be happy unless they get as much money as UF. Any metric that is used to determine money distribution will not be acceptable if in a couple of years FSU declines and makes less than UF. It has nothing to do with popularity, TV Viewership, donated money, etc. It only has to do with FSU wanting more than everybody else.

If the ACC does not give in and keeps relatively equal revenue splits, the conference might fail in 5-10 years. If the ACC does give in and pay FSU more than everyone else, the conference will certainly fail in 5-10 years.

Correct. Here's an article about the post-season incentives to go into effect this year: https://www.espn.com/college-footba...new-revenue-distribution-model-reward-success

Word was that certain schools like FSU were clamoring for an uneven split. This was at least part of the reasoning behind the new incentives.

And as a reward for their appeasement of FSU, FSU filed a lawsuit against the ACC. Appeasement seldom works in the long run.

 

[stinger78]

Correct. Here's an article about the post-season incentives to go into effect this year: https://www.espn.com/college-footba...new-revenue-distribution-model-reward-success

Word was that certain schools like FSU were clamoring for an uneven split. This was at least part of the reasoning behind the new incentives.

And as a reward for their appeasement of FSU, FSU filed a lawsuit against the ACC. Appeasement seldom works in the long run.

It’s like giving the fat kid more chocolate chip cookies. He gets fatter and wants more cookies.