Conference Realignment

[slugboy]

Academically, they’re a great fit. Better than most of who we have, really

 

[Techster]

Academically, they’re a great fit. Better than most of who we have, really

So much for the "ACC didn't want them" or there's no money to make it happen talk.

I'm more curious about how it will affect the GOR. I doubt half the ACC members agree to add those schools if the league doesn't reduce the GOR schedule or if those two teams don't add positive value for yearly media payouts.

 

[eetech]

I hope I’m wrong but a lot of the advantages GT had when it was reportedly last approached by the B1G only to turn them down have now disappeared.

1. Access to Atlanta TV market. This mattered because the B1G could charge more for BTN subscriptions in the Atlanta market if GT made it an in conference market. The problem with this today is (1) Cord cutting means that the share the BTN subscriptions make of the B1G’s total revenue is dropping drastically so the number of cable subscriptions involved has dropped and is continuing to drop, so the dollars are just not large enough anymore. (2) The B1G has sold a significant share of their BTN stake to FOX since then, so BTN is less important to them even if cord cutting wasn’t happening.

2. Improve recruiting by more games available locally. This is also not as relevant anymore. B1G has signed a package deal with multiple national networks. Sure, there might be a GT game on TruTV but there will be 2 B1G games on Fox/CBS at the same time and those will be much more visible to more people in the Atlanta TV market. And any B1G games that cannot fit the Saturday TV lineup will likely be available via streaming platforms in Atlanta anyways.

3. National profile. GT’s national profile in football is greatly diminished. Unfortunately Tech doesn’t bring much strength on its own. Further, dropping viewership and attendance at Tech games hurts.

4. UGAg. Tech being in the shadow of what has easily been the most successful football program in the last 2 years hurts badly. The B1G knows any GA kids growing up today following football will be badly skewed towards UGAg rather than GT. GT’s hold on its local geography is only going to reduce.

GT still has some strengths.
1. Growing academic prowess, but unfortunately even here I don’t think this is as important to the B1G as it was a few years ago.

2. If the B1G wants to go head to head against the SEC, Atlanta is the place to do it, basically being in the center of SEC country. I’m not sure the B1G even wants to do that, however, ceding the South to the SEC and claiming stake on the rest of the country (they’ve really not been keen on disturbing things and their actions have been reactive…they could very well have gotten TX, OU over the SEC if they were keen on disrupting the South). But also, it’s not clear to me why the B1G couldn’t host a championship game in Atlanta anyways. I doubt the Atlanta business and government interests will have any difference in opinion on doing so whether Technis part of the B1G or not (heck, if Tech is part of it I think they may be even more against simply because they hate Tech so much…at least at the govt and local business level).

 

[cpf2001]

Bringing in Cal/Stanford without Oregon/Washington (or ideally USC/UCLA but that was probably never realistic) definitely would feel like a bad copycat move.

The ACC has a lot of “sometimes can be very good but don’t have the huge stable fanbases of the biggest SEC or Big10 schools” programs with academically-focused student bodies, what does adding more give us? Just a late night timezone footprint? At what cost?

Even UCLA/Wash are probably too academics-first to make a dent in the current fanbase gap.

 

[cpf2001]

IMO FSU’s complaints make a lot more sense if the ACC has been talking about further watering things down with these PAC schools

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

So much for the "ACC didn't want them" or there's no money to make it happen talk.

Well, it hasn't happened yet. Note that the purpose of the calls, is "early exploratory discussions." Could very likely come to nothing, especially if ESPN can't pony up more cash...

 

[Techster]

Well, it hasn't happened yet. Note that the purpose of the calls, is "early exploratory discussions." Could very likely come to nothing, especially if ESPN can't pony up more cash...

None of these discussions happens without ESPN (or FOX) getting consulted first. It's a moot point if there's no money. It's also a reason why Stanford made a fuss about not "lowering" themselves to join the Big12 if they knew the ACC was a possibility.

 

[CEB]

So much for the "ACC didn't want them" or there's no money to make it happen talk.

I'm more curious about how it will affect the GOR. I doubt half the ACC members agree to add those schools if the league doesn't reduce the GOR schedule or if those two teams don't add positive value for yearly media payouts.

“Vet and have early exploratory discussions on potential...”

Hard to work anymore caveats and qualifiers into that. Lack of money and interest may still be true.

The GOR just says new members have to sign it. Not sure there is anything more to that. What might be interesting is getting them the votes. There may be a member school or three that will hold their approval hostage

 

[cpf2001]

Maybe we can convince a Stanford billionaire like the NVIDIA guy to throw in a bunch of money in the name of upgrading athletics in an academic-focused super league, and then kick FSU out too

 

[Techster]

“Vet and have early exploratory discussions on potential...”

Hard to work anymore caveats and qualifiers into that. Lack of money and interest may still be true.

The GOR just says new members have to sign it. Not sure there is anything more to that. What might be interesting is getting them the votes. There may be a member school or three that will hold their approval hostage

Agree. All discussions will start with:

ACC: Daddy (ESPN), can we have more money to add members?

If No, end of discussion.

If Yes, then it's:

ACC: Hey, FSU/UNC/Clemson/UVA/whomever...will ya'll play nice and not demand anything if we want to add new members?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I would be shocked if adding these two schools moved the needle on money significantly upward. I wouldn't be shocked of they got an uneven distribution until the next contract renegotiation, which would mean they would likely get Big-XII money yet play in the ACC. The big win for the ACC in adding these two would be the strategic value of having one of NDs non-negotiable rivalries in the conference.

 

[RamblinRed]

I think it is extremely unlikely the ACC can add anyone right now (other than ND), that would increase the current share values.

If something comes out of these talks with Stanford and Cal (and i'm not convinced of it at all), i'm expecting they would get either a current share (if ESPN is willing to pony up for that), or less than a current share (if that is all ESPN is willing to offer up) and Stanford and Cal are ok with less than full shares.

And while I understand why fans (and some schools) are complaining about falling behind, I think there are very few (and possibly no) schools that would get a full share in the SEC or B1G right now. I expect that any school that wanted to jump to either of the Big 2 is unlikely to get more money - at least until the next contract negotiations than they currently get in the ACC.

The environment has changed and most fans are still thinking in terms of the old environment, not the new one. Fans and schools can complain about falling behind, but jumping may not make it better. They may simply end up in a situation where they end up in a conference where they are making the same money they make now and now have to play 8-9 games per year against schools that are making alot more than them in a media deal (and that doesn't even include the huge sums of money they would have to pay to extricate themselves from their current arrangement).

It was well reported that the ACC looked into expanding with PAC teams but the money did not work (and that was in a better environment then we are now in). The idea of partial shares was not an option for those schools until they saw the media contract last week. Until that happened none of them would have moved to another conference without a full share. That has changed because the market has changed.

I don't think the ACC did anything wrong. Actually I think they did exactly what was correct financially. Schools were not going to sign up for adding more schools if it diluted their share.

 

[57jacket]

Fascinating possibility. TV schedule might be wierd. Current ACC members MUST get more $ for this to even be considered. NOW, add ND and you have a great deal.

 

[awbuzz]

The BIG 12 has teams in Texas, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado. They would probably split their conference into regions and only have to travel that far once or twice a year.

I actually did some mapping, Oregon/Washington going to Wisconsin or Illinois or Michigan or Ohio isn't much different than BC/Syracuse going to Miami. Given the improvement in flight, yes it's a long flight, but it's not unsurmountable.

... don't forget the not football teams ...

 

[eetech]

I think it is extremely unlikely the ACC can add anyone right now (other than ND), that would increase the current share values.

If something comes out of these talks with Stanford and Cal (and i'm not convinced of it at all), i'm expecting they would get either a current share (if ESPN is willing to pony up for that), or less than a current share (if that is all ESPN is willing to offer up) and Stanford and Cal are ok with less than full shares.

And while I understand why fans (and some schools) are complaining about falling behind, I think there are very few (and possibly no) schools that would get a full share in the SEC or B1G right now. I expect that any school that wanted to jump to either of the Big 2 is unlikely to get more money - at least until the next contract negotiations than they currently get in the ACC.

The environment has changed and most fans are still thinking in terms of the old environment, not the new one. Fans and schools can complain about falling behind, but jumping may not make it better. They may simply end up in a situation where they end up in a conference where they are making the same money they make now and now have to play 8-9 games per year against schools that are making alot more than them in a media deal (and that doesn't even include the huge sums of money they would have to pay to extricate themselves from their current arrangement).

It was well reported that the ACC looked into expanding with PAC teams but the money did not work (and that was in a better environment then we are now in). The idea of partial shares was not an option for those schools until they saw the media contract last week. Until that happened none of them would have moved to another conference without a full share. That has changed because the market has changed.

I don't think the ACC did anything wrong. Actually I think they did exactly what was correct financially. Schools were not going to sign up for adding more schools if it diluted their share.

I agree that the ACC didn’t do anything wrong. At the same time, the big change is the PAC-12 implosion showed how quickly things can change. And the ACC is at risk of things changing.

In truth, as someone else pointed out, even the Big12 might be more stable than the ACC simply because there’s no conference that wants any teams from there. The ACC offers a slate of teams that the B1G or SEC would be willing to poach. FSU, Clemson, VPI, UNC, UVA are very attractive targets for the B1G and UNC/VPI/UVA are extremely attractive to the SEC. They wouldn’t be hurt by adding FSU/Clemson either. Miami, NC State, may be attractive add-ons for the B1G. Duke and GT are also potential targets for strategic reasons (Duke for basketball, GT for Atlanta).

But if even 2 of those teams were ever poached, it wouldn’t take much for the ACC to fall apart.

The only thing keeping the ACC together right now is the GOR. And that’s a very risky thread to rely on. It’s 1 court decision away from not existing.

 

[57jacket]

Cal schools play on Fridays maybe???

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

If we're going to take Cal and Stanford, then at least go steal whoever we want from the Big 12 and destroy them

 

[reckrider]

Amid the last round of conference realignment that rocked the college sports world, Rick Pitino took to social media to share his thoughts. The former Kentucky and Louisville basketball coach, currently at St. John’s, asked his followers on X, “Doesn’t it make more sense for football to break away to separate leagues and allow the rest of the sports to compete regionally? Rivalries remain (and) minor sports don’t spend half their day looking for bad food at airport restaurants!!!”

 

[CuseJacket]

Sources: ACC plans calls to discuss Cal, Stanford

ACC leaders are set to begin exploratory discussions on the potential additions of California and Stanford to the conference, sources told ESPN's Pete Thamel on Monday, but the scheduled calls are in the embryonic stages at the point.

www.espn.com

Sources cautioned that the two scheduled discussions are in the embryonic stages -- one call slated with the ACC athletic directors and a separate call with the league's presidents that will play out on Monday and Tuesday.

There will be headwinds to a move for Cal and Stanford to the ACC, as sources on Monday cautioned about the complexities involved.

"It's complicated," an ACC source said. "There's a significant travel expense. I think it's going to be all over the board with both the ADs and the presidents in what they may want to do. [Cal and Stanford] would likely have to take a reduced share. Eventually, though, they're going to want to become a full share."

The potential additions of Cal and Stanford do not project to be financial game-changers, per sources. And while the addition of the academic prestige of schools like Cal and Stanford would certainly excite some ACC presidents, the fiscal upside appears limited.

"There's no windfall for the current members," the ACC source said, indicating that it's hard to envision any scenarios where it would be significantly additive for the current schools.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So much for the "ACC didn't want them" or there's no money to make it happen talk.

Money is still an issue. Now that the Pac-12 has imploded, teams are willing to move for less money.

Sources: ACC plans calls to discuss Cal, Stanford

ACC leaders are set to begin exploratory discussions on the potential additions of California and Stanford to the conference, sources told ESPN's Pete Thamel on Monday, but the scheduled calls are in the embryonic stages at the point.

www.espn.com

"It's complicated," an ACC source said. "There's a significant travel expense. I think it's going to be all over the board with both the ADs and the presidents in what they may want to do. [Cal and Stanford] would likely have to take a reduced share. Eventually, though, they're going to want to become a full share."