Expansion Talk 2021

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

WVU still brings nothing to the table financially. No matter how often 3 posters claim they do.

WVU has zero shot at becoming a member of the ACC unless for some reason a Super Power demanded they join with them. That would be Notre Dame, Penn State, Ohio State, or Michigan. ND isn't going to bat for WVU, Penn State is a less than 1% dream, and the other two are just LOL funny.

There's still no reason to believe there will be four 16-team conferences other than just nice round numbers. The SEC would expand again if they could get the teams out of GOR agreements. The B1G taking Kansas or anyone else is because they bring value to that conference and they are available. I don't see what Iowa State brings at all but we will see.

The PAC-12 adding teams without changing their media contract seems unlikely. Do they Big 12 leftovers accomplish that? Possibly.

The best thing in the world for the ACC is the B1G and Pac-12 going to 16 and the four conferences locking out the Independents. Then Notre Dame joins and if for whatever reason we have to add an additional team, then a combination of ND and ESPN will choose that team since one brings the money and the other pays the money.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Penn St is not leaving the BIG10, it’s not happening people.

It’s more likely to happen than WV joining the ACC, which is kind of the point.

WV joining the the ACC is 1000 times more likely that Penn St leaving the B1G, though I have doubts EITHER actually happen.

As for PSU, they currently reside in the richest conference and receive millions more each year than they would by switching to the ACC. Assuming that an addition of ND and PSU would allow for the ACC to rewrite a contract with ESPN equitable with the current B1G and the new $EC, PSU would still be taking a major risk in leaving a sure thing for a maybe.

Think about that for a minute. If the ACC had a salesman that could successfully pitch that, we wouldn't be where we are right now anyways....

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Obviously you've never lived in Alabama to make such an ignorant comment.

Does not matter. Alabama vs Auburn used to attract more national attention, just like Tech vs Georgia. That is no longer the case for Tech vs Georgia. Younger fans don’t care as much about rivalries. Nebraska vs Oklahoma used to be one of the top rivalries in the nation.

Sure, diehard Auburn and Alabama fans still think it’s a big deal but in terms of national attention and viewership it is not the same anymore. Bet you see the national numbers among the younger demographic jump when Oklahoma pulls into Tuscaloosa.

I could be wrong but so far the trend lines are continuing to show declines in interest in historic rivalries. Surely you can name a half dozen examples of this.

 

[orientalnc]

Does not matter. Alabama vs Auburn used to attract more national attention, just like Tech vs Georgia. That is no longer the case for Tech vs Georgia. Younger fans don’t care as much about rivalries. Nebraska vs Oklahoma used to be one of the top rivalries in the nation.

Sure, diehard Auburn and Alabama fans still think it’s a big deal but in terms of national attention and viewership it is not the same anymore. Bet you see the national numbers among the younger demographic jump when Oklahoma pulls into Tuscaloosa.

I could be wrong but so far the trend lines are continuing to show declines in interest in historic rivalries. Surely you can name a half dozen examples of this.

Alabama v. Auburn is still very much the big game for both schools. Every measure of Auburn football is about the comparison to Alabama. That said, the rivalry seems less important when Bama is a lot better than Auburn. The same with COFH and the OU-Nebraska. Also, OU and Nebraska used to be playing each other for the Big 8 championship. Being in different conferences reduces the rivalry. That said, the Texas-OU game is still the big game for OU. The Texas-A&M gane usd to a big rivalry that may get some new life.

I am in Michigan camping and occasionally see T-shirts that dis tOSU, so these rivalries still matter. Do they matter as much as they used to? That is a good question.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You actually don’t even have to talk about this but I figured since you are that maybe you could give your side of why a school the size of WV dosent bring anything. All I hear is they don’t bring anything, I’d like to know what you realistically think “bringing something“ actually is. Gate revenue pays every team that visits and given the size of the gate I’d say that’s something the conference could use. I really doubt that you apply an all or nothing attitude toward your personal life. I bet you take the $ 50 dollar bill despite there being someone out there with a $100 dollar bill. A bird in the hand kinda thing.

if you would like to continue the conversation, despite not having to provide a solution, Id also like to know how you propose luring any Big 10 or SEC team to a conference that’s 20 to 30 million per team less in revenue and can’t redo its TV deal until 2036.

or easier I guess, just name the school that The ACC can draw that ESPN deems worthy enough to redo the contract for.

That's the whole point. The only reason to add schools to the conference is to increase the revenue stream of the existing teams in the conference and strategic alliances. Since schools like WV don't do either, there is no reason to add them. If the ACC can't come up with creative and innovative ways to attract teams that will move the needle for our TV contract, then we shouldn't do anything.

Besides, I'm pretty sure no team shares the gate revenue with the visiting team unless it's something specifically negotiated. That amount is a pittance anyway. Your analogy is pretty far off. I'd take $50, but I wouldn't take $0.50. It's just not worth the effort.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Our best (or realistically) only hope is that the BIG comes calling for Clemson, FSU, UM and GT. I just don’t see UNC/Duke or UVA/VT separating. Maybe though, money talks and obviously they could still play an end of the year rivalry game whether they were in the same conf or not.

I fear you are correct.

My long shot hope was that there would be just enough churning of teams, just enough contract rights broken, just enough ESPN manipulation that the ACC could strengthen its appeal and add two national brands.

My next preference would be to join the B1G.

After that, we might as well wait to see if there is even an ACC in ten years. Doesn’t look hopeful right now but who knows where this is going.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Alabama v. Auburn is still very much the big game for both schools. Every measure of Auburn football is about the comparison to Alabama. That said, the rivalry seems less important when Bama is a lot better than Auburn. The same with COFH and the OU-Nebraska. Also, OU and Nebraska used to be playing each other for the Big 8 championship. Being in different conferences reduces the rivalry. That said, the Texas-OU game is still the big game for OU. The Texas-A&M gane usd to a big rivalry that may get some new life.

I am in Michigan camping and occasionally see T-shirts that dis tOSU, so these rivalries still matter. Do they matter as much as they used to? That is a good question.

Agree with all of this but keep in mind I am not talking exclusively about how an old Tech fan feels about Georgia or an old Auburn fan feels about Alabama.

I’m talking national eyes on contests and younger national eyes especially.

 

[TooTall]

Does not matter. Alabama vs Auburn used to attract more national attention, just like Tech vs Georgia. That is no longer the case for Tech vs Georgia. Younger fans don’t care as much about rivalries. Nebraska vs Oklahoma used to be one of the top rivalries in the nation.

Sure, diehard Auburn and Alabama fans still think it’s a big deal but in terms of national attention and viewership it is not the same anymore. Bet you see the national numbers among the younger demographic jump when Oklahoma pulls into Tuscaloosa.

I could be wrong but so far the trend lines are continuing to show declines in interest in historic rivalries. Surely you can name a half dozen examples of this.

I can: the Apple cup, bedlam, COFH, backyard brawl, golden boot. The Iron Bowl still attracts more eyes than any other rivalries, including the ND USC game. Possibly the Michigan v Ohio St is the only other comparable rivalry in terms of eyes watching. Using AU vs UA as an example for declining rivalry stats is a swing and a miss.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That's the whole point. The only reason to add schools to the conference is to increase the revenue stream of the existing teams in the conference and strategic alliances. Since schools like WV don't do either, there is no reason to add them. If the ACC can't come up with creative and innovative ways to attract teams that will move the needle for our TV contract, then we shouldn't do anything.

Besides, I'm pretty sure no team shares the gate revenue with the visiting team unless it's something specifically negotiated. That amount is a pittance anyway. Your analogy is pretty far off. I'd take $50, but I wouldn't take $0.50. It's just not worth the effort.

As of right now, there are no schools not located in South Bend that would add any real value to the ACC in the terms you are specifying. That being said, the REAL value of any addition is that it allows us to renegotiate the TV contract. While not ideal, WVU is probably the best geographical fit of the rest, though Cincinnati is the school I'd rather go after.

IMO, of all the schools left in the Big not 12, Kansas is the only school that brings any semblance of value to a conference, and that's only because they are a basketball blue blood and BBall still brings in money, especially in the mid-west. I see the B1G snapping them up.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I can: the Apple cup, bedlam, COFH, backyard brawl, golden boot. The Iron Bowl still attracts more eyes than any other rivalries, including the ND USC game. Possibly the Michigan v Ohio St is the only other comparable rivalry in terms of eyes watching. Using AU vs UA as an example for declining rivalry stats is a swing and a miss.

Army-Navy

 

[bobongo]

yep we are being held hostage for meaningful expansion by ND. So far not a lot of good options. They hold the high.cards for now.

Well, it's interesting. The ACC also holds Notre Dame hostage, at least until 2036.

 

[orientalnc]

Kelly Quinlan (@Kelly_Quinlan) Tweeted:
ND's home opener getting paywalled by NBC... Seems like a terrible idea for a team that is already behind everyone else in the P5 in TV money.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Army-Navy

Yes, my thought exactly..bring Army and Navy into the ACC. Biggest brands in all college football. More eyes watch them play their seasons than anybody.

And look at the nightmare it would bring to every DC in the ACC.

 

[TruckStick]

Inevitably I know the regional conferences are still a thing but there will be one or two super leagues like the NFL/AFL with self governing. The NCAA/amateur model is gone for football. For everything else it matters. Everything until then is just shifting.

 

[RonJohn]

Kelly Quinlan (@Kelly_Quinlan) Tweeted:
ND's home opener getting paywalled by NBC... Seems like a terrible idea for a team that is already behind everyone else in the P5 in TV money.

I think this just highlights the fact that broadcast companies are not "partners" of sports organizations. ESPN is not an ally of GT or of the ACC. The ACC is a product that ESPN pays for and then tries to maximize their revenue off of. Comcast pays ND regardless according to the contract. Comcast wants to highlight Peacock and get more people to subscribe, or to sign up with Xfinity to get it for free. It doesn't matter if this helps or hurts ND. Comcast paid for broadcast rights and is going to use it to try to maximize their earnings.

Compare it to cereal brands at a grocery store. The store gets a contract with "ACC cereal" and puts it on the shelf. The store will highlight and market if they get concessions from the ACC, or if marketing the ACC cereal will increase profits of the store. If a more popular cereal comes along and makes more money for the store, the shelf space and shelf placement of the ACC will be reduced to make room for the money maker. If ACC cereal is no longer making profits for the store, the store will do everything it can to get out of the contract.

ESPN is not a friend of the ACC, they are only a mutual business partner. If ESPN can make more money by highlighting the ACC, they will do that. If ESPN can make more money by getting the ACC dismantled, they will do that. It is not about tradition. It is not about partnership. It is not about respect. It is purely about maximizing revenue.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I can: the Apple cup, bedlam, COFH, backyard brawl, golden boot. The Iron Bowl still attracts more eyes than any other rivalries, including the ND USC game. Possibly the Michigan v Ohio St is the only other comparable rivalry in terms of eyes watching. Using AU vs UA as an example for declining rivalry stats is a swing and a miss.

Interesting.

If you google most watched regular season college football games over the last 25 years, a game between Auburn and Alabama shows up as number 8. Notre Dame vs FSU was number 1.

Of the rivalries, it appears Ohio State vs Michigan is the most consistent in attracting eye balls. But many, many historic rivalries don’t show up as attracting a wide national audience.

My point was simple. The fact that WV has a historic rivalry with Pittsburg is not going to attract the national eyes the same way as having an Oklahoma or Texas or Penn State or Notre Dame in your conference. And certain matchups will be TV gold even if the teams are not historic rivalries.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think this just highlights the fact that broadcast companies are not "partners" of sports organizations. ESPN is not an ally of GT or of the ACC. The ACC is a product that ESPN pays for and then tries to maximize their revenue off of. Comcast pays ND regardless according to the contract. Comcast wants to highlight Peacock and get more people to subscribe, or to sign up with Xfinity to get it for free. It doesn't matter if this helps or hurts ND. Comcast paid for broadcast rights and is going to use it to try to maximize their earnings.

Compare it to cereal brands at a grocery store. The store gets a contract with "ACC cereal" and puts it on the shelf. The store will highlight and market if they get concessions from the ACC, or if marketing the ACC cereal will increase profits of the store. If a more popular cereal comes along and makes more money for the store, the shelf space and shelf placement of the ACC will be reduced to make room for the money maker. If ACC cereal is no longer making profits for the store, the store will do everything it can to get out of the contract.

ESPN is not a friend of the ACC, they are only a mutual business partner. If ESPN can make more money by highlighting the ACC, they will do that. If ESPN can make more money by getting the ACC dismantled, they will do that. It is not about tradition. It is not about partnership. It is not about respect. It is purely about maximizing revenue.

Exactly right in my opinion.

My hope is that there is someone in the ACC brain trust who can show ESPN some numbers that justify strengthening the ACC rather than destroying it. A strong ACC would benefit ESPN. They just need to be persuaded that the right partnership would be a win-win.

Yeah, I’m grasping at straws.

 

[Techster]

Kelly Quinlan (@Kelly_Quinlan) Tweeted:
ND's home opener getting paywalled by NBC... Seems like a terrible idea for a team that is already behind everyone else in the P5 in TV money.

This is the future. You want to see the biggest games in the SEC or B1G? Better have that SEC/B1G channel subscription.

If you take the entire catalog of top tier content behind subscription "wall", you don't really have a choice, do you? The only other choice is you refuse to pay for it and not watch...and that's OK because there will be plenty of other fans willing to pay and watch. It's not much different than different providers only having certain games. How many times do we discuss where certain games are available? Pretty much every single game.

We are in the middle of a sea of change for access to sports content. You're either going to have to pay to watch a lot of the good content, or opt out. That's up to you.

 

[stech81]

Yes, my thought exactly..bring Army and Navy into the ACC. Biggest brands in all college football. More eyes watch them play their seasons than anybody.

And look at the nightmare it would bring to every DC in the ACC.

Nope will not bring in more revenue

 

[WreckinGT]

This is the future. You want to see the biggest games in the SEC or B1G? Better have that SEC/B1G channel subscription.

If you take the entire catalog of top tier content behind subscription "wall", you don't really have a choice, do you? The only other choice is you refuse to pay for it and not watch...and that's OK because there will be plenty of other fans willing to pay and watch. It's not much different than different providers only having certain games. How many times do we discuss where certain games are available? Pretty much every single game.

We are in the middle of a sea of change for access to sports content. You're either going to have to pay to watch a lot of the good content, or opt out. That's up to you.

Maybe, but I am someone who watches 4-5 games a week now and I doubt I would ever subscribe to any service that doesn't offer Tech sports. I don't think I would even pay for bowl games or the CFP. If their goal is to dwindle the interest in the sport overall then this seems like the way to go. Now if they somehow bundled all conferences together and offered a CFB streaming package for some kind of reasonable price then that might be a compelling product.