Conference Realignment

[RamblinRed]

FWIW, I think the idea that the ACC won't exist a year from now is simple kookery. It's fans not slowing down to really think and react to what has happened.

What rationale is there for either the SEC or B10 to go to 20 teams, much less more than that. As far as I can tell, there is no rationale for that. They'd just likely be diluting their shares.

The B10 has already made it clear it doesn't see Oregon and Washington as valuable enough to bring on right now when there would be almost no cost to bringing them in. That speaks volumes to me. That tells me there are very few schools that the SEC and B10 would consider adding, especially if it requires time, resources and money to make it happen.

I honestly think the only move that would cause significant changes right now would be if ND went to the B10, but all signs point to them simply wanting to stay independent unless it is no longer feasible for them to do so.

 

[RonJohn]

We won't be in the game. That's my point. Were we to return to the $EC we still wouldn't be in the game. Being in the same conference isn't the same thing. We won't be in the game unless we fix what's wrong with GT football.

FWIW, I am not arguing that if it ends up as two super-conferences we shouldn't be in one. I'm saying it won't matter even if we are if we don't get our financial house in order and start generating revenue to compete.

I agree with you that being in a conference with a larger payout will not fix the financial issues with the GTAA. However, not having a larger conference payout will keep us further behind. GT needs to get more money from tickets, merchandise, and donations. At the same time GT needs to get more money from league media rights. We can't just increase ticket sales and believe all our financial issues are solved. Similarly we can't just move to the Big10 and believe all our financial issues are solved.

I think there are too many people who believe that joining the Big10 or SEC would solve every athletic issue that GT has. Those people are wrong. But increasing conference money is still a part of the picture.

In my opinion, the ACC is 10-20 years behind the Big10 and SEC. I think the GOR and ESPN contract helped ESPN much more than it helped any member of the ACC. By the time the ESPN and GOR contracts expire, the other conferences will be two or three steps further along than the ACC. If the ACC exists in 2036, it will be negotiating a contract similar to what the other conferences are negotiating for 2026. Maybe the new commissioner is a better leader and will be trying to match the other conferences, but the history of the ACC is reacting to what the other conferences do instead of charting new territory.

 

[UgaBlows]

I agree. Money and fan support is the problem outside of our on-the-field results. A better TV deal through another conference is a sure-fire way to increase cash flow while we work out the other problems and try to increase our talent pool.

Dramatically more money from the BIG or SEC will help us pay off our debt, hire better coaches and staff and improve recruiting. We can work on fixing GT’s other issues after that. I believe that our home crowds would be better as well so that would have to help. We will never be able to buy a team full of nfl prospects with NIL money like Ohio St etc but I still hold out hope that someone will get control of that situation eventually.

 

[GTRX7]

Good points.

I'll say I don't think GT will ever get close to Scenario 3 - even if it jumped to the B10. It would probably be something more like GT has a $150M budget and the Top schools in the conference have $250-300M budgets. I think that is the most realistic outcome of a jump to one of the Top 2 conferences.

There is a 4th scenario. Say a school has a $75M budget and then ends up in a conference where it ends up with a $100M budget and all the other members of that conference end up with 90-120M budgets.
Or maybe its a tier 2 conference and the rights ultimately go down, more in line with $60-90M budgets You actually have more room for error to compete with your other conference members in this case as you are all closer in resources. Also in this case you aren't competing at all with the conferences where you have $200-300M budgets. You are not playing for the same championship. You are playing for a different championship.

That is where I sort of feel like FBS college football is headed. To multiple tiers with multiple championships. More like HS sports actually where you have championships for AAAA, AAA, AA, A, etc. For the schools involved are those championships feeling any different based on the classification?

I think the decision as a fan ultimately comes down to what is most important to you. Is it competing for a championship at the Big 2 level, or is it competing for a championship at a level that matches what you are. Different fans are going to have different feelings about that and they are all legitimate. Fans are talking about if you don't end up in the Big 2 you won't receive the money that allows you to recruit the recruits that end up in the Big 2. That is absolutely correct. But that is not necessarily the most important question. The most important question is will you have the resources to compete at whatever level (tier) you are in.

My viewpoint is likely shaped by my background (undergrad from GT, grad school at Penn). It is not as important to me to be competing at the 'highest' level in terms of resources. It is important to me to be competing at a level where we have a legit shot against our opponents and our opponents have the beliefs in terms of the rules and regulations as we do.

These are all very interesting discussions, but I am also not really expecting alot of movement in ACC schools in the next couple of years. I think it is less likely than more likely that even 1 ACC school departs in the next 2 years. Now come the end of 2024 I think that could be different, But right now I think the biggest task is to figure out where you want to be long term and put yourself in the best position to get there over the next few years.

That all makes sense to me. And, even more than a total budget, I think NIL is going to be the real limiting factor for how well Tech can compete at the highest levels.

As I said before, all big reasons why I agree that we may in fact be better off sticking with the ACC even if some of the top ACC programs are raided by the big 2.

 

[RonJohn]

FWIW, I think the idea that the ACC won't exist a year from now is simple kookery. It's fans not slowing down to really think and react to what has happened.

What rationale is there for either the SEC or B10 to go to 20 teams, much less more than that. As far as I can tell, there is no rationale for that. They'd just likely be diluting their shares.

The B10 has already made it clear it doesn't see Oregon and Washington as valuable enough to bring on right now when there would be almost no cost to bringing them in. That speaks volumes to me. That tells me there are very few schools that the SEC and B10 would consider adding, especially if it requires time, resources and money to make it happen.

I honestly think the only move that would cause significant changes right now would be if ND went to the B10, but all signs point to them simply wanting to stay independent unless it is no longer feasible for them to do so.

I posted that I think it is a possibility. I don't believe it is probable, but I don't think it is kooky.

It would benefit the Big10 if ND, Stanford, and some ACC teams from the Southeast joined. They would spread the TV market footprint even more for the TV negotiations.
The SEC picking up FSU, Miami, and Clemson wouldn't help the TV markets. Picking up NC State and VT would. Arizona could add the Pheonix market. It probably wouldn't be as much of an addition to the SEC, but they might try to keep up with the Big10.

I think any of this would depend on ND joining the Big10 as a catalyst. I would say it isn't likely to happen, but a year ago I wouldn't have believed that TX and OK would join the SEC or that USC and UCLA would join the Big10. I won't be surprised if nothing else happens for a few years, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the entire conference system is shaken up within the next couple of months.

 

[RamblinRed]

I suspect any deal B10 does with its TV partner will allow it to either have a look in at specific points or a look in whenever teams are added.
That will make it less likely that they have to make a move right now when it might not be in their best financial interests. They can wait.

I think the next big inflection is around 2025 with the CFP expiring. The B10 and SEC could force things more at that point if they decide they are going to hold their own football championship. That is when schools will have to make decisions and the Big 2 can sort of sit back and negotiate the best terms for themselves
At that point I can see both conferences taking on a few more teams, but I still don't think it will be alot.

If at that point SEC tried to grab Clemson and FSU and B10 was able to convince ND (and say they took Stanford to sweeten the pot for ND). At that point both would be at 18 teams and have every team who has played a CFP game except Washington and Cincy. They could basically set up an AFC/NFC structure for the post-season. That would be 36 schools total and then everyone else ends up in a different level (probably 2 levels).

The biggest issue for ACC schools that might want to leave, or for their fans who want to leave, is that there are 14 schools in the ACC. There are at least 5 that I simply think will not leave due to history (NC4 and VA) that leaves only 9. Out of those 9 probably only FSU, Clemson, and maybe GT and Miami might garner interest. I don't think Syracuse, Pitt, BC, VT, L'ville will have any interest from the Big 2. So you only have 3 or 4 schools that may want to leave who would even garner any interest, that is not enough to overcome the GoR easily when you probably need 7 or 8 teams trying to get out. Which makes me think the idea that the ACC is just going to implode to make it easy for schools to leave to be a very unlikely event.

 

[bobongo]

This is something that actually could end the ACC GOR. If the SEC were to go to 24 by adding 5 ACC teams and 3 big12/pac12 teams, and the Big10 were to go to 24 by adding 4 or 5 ACC teams - ND- Oregon and Stanford, would the remaining 4-5 ACC teams rebuild the ACC as a lesser conference to try to keep the GOR money or would they try to form a new conference with the other teams from the Big12/Pac12? I am not advocating for such a shake-up, but I do think such a thing might be possible. The ACC might not even exist a year from now.

Hell if that happens I hope we're left behind. I don't see how it ends the GOR. As I understand it, it just means the leftovers would split the media dough of the ones that bolted for the next 14 years. We could pay off our debts and be sittin' in high cotton by the time 2036 rolls around. Just stick with a four-team ACC. Three conference games and nine OOC. Or 6 home-and-home and 6 OOC. I like it.

 

[slugboy]

Do keep in mind that Dodds has been a long time B12 shill who always paints a rosy picture for that conference. What he is saying may be true, and I think ultimately just due to how close they are in terms of geography and in terms of when their contracts are all up that there is going to be some back and forth between those 2 conferences.

It makes sense for the B12 to try to add Utah, AZ, AZST, and really any of the big current P12 schools. As far as I know, their lock-in wouldn’t be worse than what they have now.
Even with USC and UCLA moving, I don’t know that Oregon would be better off in the B12 (I doubt it, but I don’t know the math). if a few more schools panic, maybe something happens.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Dramatically more money from the BIG or SEC will help us pay off our debt, hire better coaches and staff and improve recruiting.

Pay off debt, yes. If the other teams who already have more money than us also get a piece of that same pie, then they will still have more money than us to outbid us for coaches. Same for facilities and recruiting.

 

[RonJohn]

I suspect any deal B10 does with its TV partner will allow it to either have a look in at specific points or a look in whenever teams are added.
That will make it less likely that they have to make a move right now when it might not be in their best financial interests. They can wait.

The Big10 TV contracts expire next year. This is exactly the time for them to make moves. They can have renegotiations set up in their contract for things like adding teams, but now is when they can pit Fox against ESPN against NBC.

NBC is expected to make a run at Big Ten media rights - Sports Illustrated

NBC hopes to add coverage of Big Ten athletics to its college coverage that already includes Notre Dame football.

www.si.com

It is much easier to control negotiations when there are multiple people bidding for your contract than when you are simply trying to get more out of one party.

 

[MusicalBuzz]

So, while I think we would most likely still be at a huge disadvantage in the B10 if we were to join, the new money would at least give us a margin for error and a fighter's chance in that it would provide us at least enough resources to make some important decisions with money that we cannot even fathom right now. I am not saying we WOULD be competitive. but it gives us a better chance that we COULD be.

Thanks for breaking this down! I’ve been idling on the sidelines having this very thought.

Or, summed up: How much money does it really take to run a football program? (Answer: more)

 

[bensaysitathome]

All this talk of 'adding teams only means diluting shares' seems like it's missing some of the point. ESPN wants the ratings from a regular season Clemson/Bama game. They want the ad money from a Miami/LSU game.

They're looking to get the most appealing product that increases viewership.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This is largely my view. I would rather be competing for championships in a "leftover" ACC than playing zero historic or regional rivals and basically finishing 12th out of 18/20 teams every year.

The only thing that makes me hesitate is the hypothetical that, if we double (triple?) our athletic revenue through one of these major conference TV deals, could we get back to competing at the highest level with the "big boys?" Maybe.

Right now, we are desperate for money and I truly believe that has been one of our biggest obstacles to competing in the ACC. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't financially make a high level coaching move in either football or basketball, let alone both.

The other part of that equation is, of course, NIL. Even if we get the money as an institution from a much bigger TV deal, will we ever have the market to compete for the players? There is a reason that there are barely any successful college programs in big city markets and the vast majority of power schools (and big NIL deals) are in rural areas. Tech is a small fish in a huge media/sports market. I don't ever see us being able to compete at the top level in the new NIL market. We just don't have local businesses that will sustain those endorsement deals when those local companies can instead sign deals with Falcons, Braves, Hawks, Atlanta United, or even UGA players, etc.

So, I still lean towards sticking with the ACC and competing against whatever is left after 5 years, even if a few flagship "football" schools like ND, Clemson, and FSU are gone. I wouldn't hate competing against UNC, UVA, Duke, Pitt, UL, VT, Wake, BC, (W. Va?), (UCF/USF?), etc. That is a pretty good spot for Tech in the new sports landscape in my opinion.

We don’t play most of our historic or regional rivalries anymore. Some of the replacements leave me flat. Call me crazy but if you give me a choice of losing to North Carolina State or losing to Michigan I’d rather lose to Michigan just to see how we stack up against a strong program.

But, sure, if we were still playing Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Navy, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Notre Dame along with Duke, Clemson and Georgia, I might feel different about staying in the ACC. But historic rivalries don’t matter to people as much as they used to.

 

[Techster]

FWIW, I think the idea that the ACC won't exist a year from now is simple kookery. It's fans not slowing down to really think and react to what has happened.

What rationale is there for either the SEC or B10 to go to 20 teams, much less more than that. As far as I can tell, there is no rationale for that. They'd just likely be diluting their shares.

The B10 has already made it clear it doesn't see Oregon and Washington as valuable enough to bring on right now when there would be almost no cost to bringing them in. That speaks volumes to me. That tells me there are very few schools that the SEC and B10 would consider adding, especially if it requires time, resources and money to make it happen.

I honestly think the only move that would cause significant changes right now would be if ND went to the B10, but all signs point to them simply wanting to stay independent unless it is no longer feasible for them to do so.

ACC isn't going away...they will continue to exist, but it's likely to exist minus multiple founding members. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Personally, I think the B1G and SEC are treading lightly in terms of adding members at the immediate moment. It has less to do with blueblood programs adding value, and more to do with lawsuits. Not only does the SEC and B1G have to contend with conferences, but the "have nots" getting left behind. The schools left behind will most likely see the media revenue take a beating once the blueblood names leave and therefore...well, there will be lawyers. The B1G and SEC don't want the appearance of inducing schools to leave and financially hurting the "have nots". That's why we were quick to hear "Texas and OU approached the SEC" and "USC and UCLA approached the B1G".

The B1G, IMO, won't have USC and UCLA as the lone "West" schools...and there can't be a conference just full of elite programs beating up on each other, and you can't have members flying 2,000 miles every other week to play a game. If you look at where B1G alumni end up moving to, the West Coast has some of the most popular destinations for B1G graduates. Which means eyeballs.

https://frankthetank.org/2018/05/18/oh-the-places-youll-go-where-big-ten-graduates-live-and-conference-realignment/

Los Angeles (USC + UCLA), in addition to being the #2 media market, is one of only 5 markets where every member of the B1G has appreciable alumni representation. One of the other five is the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market, which is the #6 media market. IMO, Stanford and Cal are in play...BOTH schools are also AAU members. Doesn't mean both will get a B1G bid, but one of the two are likely to get a bid. Seattle (UWashington), the #7 media market, is also home to a large contingent of B1G alumni. Washington is also an AAU member.

The interesting case here is Oregon. Although not in a big media market (Portland ranks #21), and not a poplular destination for B1G alumni, what Oregon does is command eyeballs. Oregon vs Ohio State was the most popular college matchup on the West Coast last year:

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

The regular season is complete, the data has been compiled, and the eyeballs have been counted. The Pac-12 performed exactly as well in the TV ratings game as you’d expect: Not markedly bette…

www.mercurynews.com

From that list, you can see that Oregon is a popular team on the West Coast and throughout the nation in terms of an attractive matchup that commands eyeballs. Oh, and Oregon is also an AAU member.

If you got a little further, Oregon is one of the most popular "brands" not just among fans, but recruits.

College football's top brands, ranked by high school recruits - College Football HQ

College Football HQ

www.si.com

College Athletics Social Media Rankings

Now more than ever, social media is instrumental towards achieving success in college athletics. Here are the programs that have excelled at leveraging social media to build their brands.

athleticdirectoru.com

There's also the Phil Knight/Nike factor. He's a well known supporter of both Oregon and Stanford. There a lot of chit chat that Phil Knight wants those programs in either the B1G (Oregon/Stanford) or SEC (Oregon). Given the clout of Phil Knight/Nike and popularity/media resume of both Oregon and Stanford, both of those schools will probably end up in the Super 2 conferences.

Altogether, I don't see how the B1G doesn't take at least 2 (or more) other teams from the PAC 12. There's a case that Oregon may just be a valuable enough brand on their own to command a bid (similar to what Oklahoma is...not a big TV market or many "home" conference alumni, but brand recognition is extremely high and popular).

I would bet a good steak dinner that the B1G takes at least 2 or more teams from the West before it's all said and done.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This cannot be stated more clearly. Changing conferences isn't a magic pill to cure what's ailing GT football.

I don’t recall anyone saying it was a magic pill. The point is that Tech could do everything right over the next five years and still fall further behind in revenue if the current expansion rate continues with the SEC and B1G. Joining the B1G is a preventative for future illnesses not a cure for our current illness.

 

[RonJohn]

All this talk of 'adding teams only means diluting shares' seems like it's missing some of the point. ESPN wants the ratings from a regular season Clemson/Bama game. They want the ad money from a Miami/LSU game.

They're looking to get the most appealing product that increases viewership.

Not quite. ESPN is still fighting to keep people from ditching cable subscriptions. Their revenue is mostly from subscriber fees. They want TV markets for the conference networks. SEC network gets better than a dollar more per subscriber in SEC markets than in the rest of the country. That is hundreds of millions of dollars whether subscribers ever turn the SEC Network on or not. Cable subscribers are dwindling. ESPN is cutting and cutting to try to keep up with cord cutters. However, free money from subscribers who have no interest in sports is too appealing for large corporations to cut. Pure streaming is coming in the future, but there are several more years for ESPN and Fox to rake in free money.

Here is a chart that shows affiliations to TV markets.

Analyzing the New NCAA Power Five Television Markets

Since the Big Ten’s recent expansion is thought to be fueled by Fox, it’s worth examining how the realigned Power Five now stacks up in terms of TV markets.

swimswam.com

 

[Randy Carson]

At this point, Tech has ONE thing to offer to ONE conference: the Atlanta market to the B1G.

We're the plain-looking girl whose daddy is filthy rich. The B1G has to be willing to marry Tech for the TV revenue...and not because we're an especially attractive catch.

If the schools from up north think that an occasional trip to the Big Peach will give their alumni a chance to see their alma maters pick up an easy win at the Georgia Dome, then we have a shot a marrying well.

Otherwise, we're going to be looking around desperately as the bartender shouts, "Last call!"

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

At this point, Tech has ONE thing to offer to ONE conference: the Atlanta market to the B1G.

We're the plain-looking girl whose daddy is filthy rich. The B1G has to be willing to marry Tech for the TV revenue...and not because we're an especially attractive catch.

If the schools from up north think that an occasional trip to the Big Peach will give their alumni a chance to see their alma maters pick up an easy win at the Georgia Dome, then we have a shot a marrying well.

Otherwise, we're going to be looking around desperately as the bartender shouts, "Last call!"

It's also possible, though less likely, the $EC invites us just to keep the B1G out of the market for recruiting purposes. After all, the $EC powers know they can out recruit us down here, but giving tOSU and Michigan a toehold in the region would give them more pause.

 

[Techster]

ACC isn't going away...they will continue to exist, but it's likely to exist minus multiple founding members. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Personally, I think the B1G and SEC are treading lightly in terms of adding members at the immediate moment. It has less to do with blueblood programs adding value, and more to do with lawsuits. Not only does the SEC and B1G have to contend with conferences, but the "have nots" getting left behind. The schools left behind will most likely see the media revenue take a beating once the blueblood names leave and therefore...well, there will be lawyers. The B1G and SEC don't want the appearance of inducing schools to leave and financially hurting the "have nots". That's why we were quick to hear "Texas and OU approached the SEC" and "USC and UCLA approached the B1G".

The B1G, IMO, won't have USC and UCLA as the lone "West" schools...and there can't be a conference just full of elite programs beating up on each other, and you can't have members flying 2,000 miles every other week to play a game. If you look at where B1G alumni end up moving to, the West Coast has some of the most popular destinations for B1G graduates. Which means eyeballs.

https://frankthetank.org/2018/05/18/oh-the-places-youll-go-where-big-ten-graduates-live-and-conference-realignment/

Los Angeles (USC + UCLA), in addition to being the #2 media market, is one of only 5 markets where every member of the B1G has appreciable alumni representation. One of the other five is the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market, which is the #6 media market. IMO, Stanford and Cal are in play...BOTH schools are also AAU members. Doesn't mean both will get a B1G bid, but one of the two are likely to get a bid. Seattle (UWashington), the #7 media market, is also home to a large contingent of B1G alumni. Washington is also an AAU member.

The interesting case here is Oregon. Although not in a big media market (Portland ranks #21), and not a poplular destination for B1G alumni, what Oregon does is command eyeballs. Oregon vs Ohio State was the most popular college matchup on the West Coast last year:

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

The regular season is complete, the data has been compiled, and the eyeballs have been counted. The Pac-12 performed exactly as well in the TV ratings game as you’d expect: Not markedly bette…

www.mercurynews.com

From that list, you can see that Oregon is a popular team on the West Coast and throughout the nation in terms of an attractive matchup that commands eyeballs. Oh, and Oregon is also an AAU member.

If you got a little further, Oregon is one of the most popular "brands" not just among fans, but recruits.

College football's top brands, ranked by high school recruits - College Football HQ

College Football HQ

www.si.com

College Athletics Social Media Rankings

Now more than ever, social media is instrumental towards achieving success in college athletics. Here are the programs that have excelled at leveraging social media to build their brands.

athleticdirectoru.com

There's also the Phil Knight/Nike factor. He's a well known supporter of both Oregon and Stanford. There a lot of chit chat that Phil Knight wants those programs in either the B1G (Oregon/Stanford) or SEC (Oregon). Given the clout of Phil Knight/Nike and popularity/media resume of both Oregon and Stanford, both of those schools will probably end up in the Super 2 conferences.

Altogether, I don't see how the B1G doesn't take at least 2 (or more) other teams from the PAC 12. There's a case that Oregon may just be a valuable enough brand on their own to command a bid (similar to what Oklahoma is...not a big TV market or many "home" conference alumni, but brand recognition is extremely high and popular).

I would bet a good steak dinner that the B1G takes at least 2 or more teams from the West before it's all said and done.

Funny enough, the tweets @CuseJacket posted matches up with my previous post. The numbers for the B1G just make too much sense (and $$$) for them to ignore:

In the end, I think the B1G is going to break their conference into 4 regions. At some point, there will be B1G South/East region and that's where GT has an opportunity given Atlanta has the biggest media market in the South region as well as most B1G alumni in the region.

 

[UgaBlows]

Pay off debt, yes. If the other teams who already have more money than us also get a piece of that same pie, then they will still have more money than us to outbid us for coaches. Same for facilities and recruiting.

But we can do better (coaches, staff, recruiting etc) than now correct? Having more money IS better than having less yes? If GT get the chance to upgrade conferences we absolutely have to take it, we are spiraling downward into fb oblivion if not....