Is the ACC in trouble?

I predict within 5-10 years they won't even have to go to class.

 

I pray this happens. But not for the reasons you think. Will give schools the option of deciding whether they want to be full-on professional, or something more similar to the past. I would imagiine, under these circumstances, the "dead weight" could create a new division with the old rules. And then we can see what actually drives ratings and attendance: Overhyped prima donnas or the name on the front of the jersey. If played right, IMO, the "dead weight" could do very well and the Georgia's and Alabama's can content themselves with dominating what amounts to a niche sport.

 

I invite you to visit Too Hot, where you’ll get the full spectrum of argument on the subject. Get informed, from all angles and perspectives, left, right and the middle.

 

Thanks for the invitation but I’ve drank from that well and will pass. Because I ask you to explain your editorial comment, you immediately accuse me of not paying attention — I expected as much.

OK we’re done — back to the ACC discussion. And if the admins choose to delete this text and yours, I’m fine with that too. Enjoy your walk back to TH

 

SMU gives the Pac-12 a presence but I'm not sure it gives enough of a presence to give them any leverage for any sort of statewide TV deal, which is what they need. Texas Tech may not either but it's got about 4 times the enrollment, so I'd assume it has significantly more alumni and alumni spread throughout the state. But getting into Texas however you can is a no-brainer.

I wouldn't put Miami in that group. They do have a large fan base but it's a small school with a small alumni base. If they're winning, they have support and might generate revenue. But it's been a long time since they did that.

I don't disagree with your thought here, but the problem is I don't think a true merger really helps much. It may be bigger but I'm not sure that makes it stronger or addresses the issues. I also don't think any conference is ever going to be able to kick weaker/underperforming members out without cause. If it was, then Northwestern and Vanderbilt would already be out.

That's why I've stated that I think what's going to have to happen is that the schools who want to form a new conference are probably going to have to figure out how to leave their conference, maybe become independent, and then form a brand new entity. That's the only way I see it being possible. But I'm sure it would be a battle. Nobody wants to be left out.

I'd personally like to see any sort or "realignment" include the top of all 3 secondary conferences. A new conference the remaining candidates (not including ND and UNC) FSU, Clemson, UVA, Washington, Oregon, NCSU, VT, Okey State, Kansas, Miami, ASU, Arizona, GT, Utah, Colorado, Cal, Stanford and Iowa State. That would be a pretty solid and marketable 18-team 3rd conference.

And I'm honestly not sure the SEC would expand just for the purpose of taking Clemson and FSU. Just like the Big-10 passed on taking Washington and Oregon. They might, but my guess is it's less than a 50-50 probability. Notre Dame/UNC with one of them would be more likely. I could see if the Big-10 eventually got Notre Dame and UNC (which is probably eventually more likely), that the SEC stays at 16, which as you say would suck a$$ for a lot of good programs.

 

They already have a second tier division. It’s just that the bottom half of the top division belongs there also and nobody should be playing FCS team.

 

The ACC's GOR is a real albatross that is causing all sorts of problems. I love the idea of a third conference taking the top ACC, BIG12, an PAC schools. But how does that happen without the ACC disbanding? Same thing for the BIG12, but at least with the BIG12, and presumably the PAC, our GOR will end around 2029 versus the ACC in 2036. And have to think schools like Clemson are eyeing the SEC. Would they agree to say $40mil for a BIGPACACC arrangement when they think $60 mil in the SEC is still possible? Guess the SEC would have to say a big fat no to any more expansion for this to happen.

To me, it's all a giant logic puzzle with several missing clues still out there. We know the B1G will only take Notre Dame and AAU schools, so Clemson isn't going B1G. But would the SEC extend an invite if Clemson was available?

I do know the BIG12 would take the 4-corner schools plus Oregon and UW tomorrow, but the PNW schools have zero desire to go BIG12. For them, it's the B1G or remain in the PAC only. And as long as the PAC exists, the 4-corner schools are more likely stay instead of going BIG12. The B1G is reluctant to kill the PAC today, but is that the same four years from now when the L.A. schools are tired of travel and looking for travel partners?

 

It was all downhill for the ACC once they let Free Shoes University and Miamah in...

 

Yeah, I am looking forward to the explanation.

 

It happens the exact same way USC and UCLA left the Pac-12 or Texas and OU left the Big-12. The schools who want to leave pay whatever price it takes and go. Then what's left of the ACC/Big-12 look to fill those spots or maybe then they merge. The question for those schools is when they figure out if there's a way around the GOR, what is the cost and is it worth it verses having their programs die in a second tier conference.

This is the really tricky part. Schools like Clemson and FSU are going to want to know if they have an invite and my guess is that the SEC aren't going to negotiate anything until they've announced they're leaving their conference. That's what they did with OU and Texas if I recall. I'm sure there was some conversations going on behind closed doors but the SEC didn't discuss it until they left the Big-12

That's going to be a really tough situation because if you announce your leaving and then don't have a place to go, a program could be really screwed.

People say that and I'm sure the Big-10 says they'll only take AAU programs, and they probably prefer to do that, but if the right school came along that wasn't AAU, I think that's probably not a deal breaker. But I agree that Clemson and FSU would probably not be schools they'd seriously consider.

No doubt the Big-12 would happily take the entire Pac-12 line-up right now. When your only truly P5 level programs remaining are arguably Oklahoma State, Iowa State, WVU and Kansas, the remaining Pac-12 programs would be a major upgrade and give them more credibility. And quite honestly, the Pac-12 schools would probably benefit because there would be a much better TV footprint to negotiate a national TV deal.

 

UF is closer to UT Austin than anyone else out there IMO.

 

After 20 or so years out in TX, I believe the same. Their overall endowment is bigger than ours with the oil money, but as far as the fans, commitment, administration, and overall athletic dept go, I could not agree more. They have a little more history, but over the last 30 or so years, I can’t think of anyone more similar, top to bottom, from academics to non revenue sports.

 

Again, logic puzzle with missing clues. The SEC may fancy Clemson, but what does the "Bank of ESPN" think? ESPN already has Clemson content at $17 million a year. Even at a 2/3 share from the SEC, that's going to cost ESPN $23 million. ESPN may be telling the SEC it can't afford expansion right now.

I also don't think PAC schools going to the BIG12 is advantageous. Not unless Oregon and UW, plus some California schools come too. That's not happening. The UArizona President has stated just how important California is in terms of both new student populations and alumni donations.

Last, institutions like universities are risk adverse. They don't leave a conference unless they already know where they are going. When TX and OU announced they were leaving, 4 BIG12 schools came to the PAC looking for a landing spot. USC squashed this because they were already negotiating with the B1G. The ACC isn't disbanding right now because there aren't 8 guaranteed landing spots for the Mag 7 plus 1.

 

There is almost nothing on Too Hot except extreme left, and, everyone knows it. Even moderate views are swarmed by the group-thinkers there. Don't kid yourself.

We're talking about Gator football here.

 

I wasn't suggesting it was advantageous to the Pac-12. I think it would have been a mistake for the Pac-12 schools to have joined the Big-12. I was just pointing out why the Big-12 would logically want the Pac-12 schools.

That's EXACTLY my point! While I'm sure schools like FSU and Clemson are privately begging the SEC for assurances they'd get an invite, I don't think they'll get them. If these schools figure out a way out of the ACC and GOR, they'd better be willing to either go it alone as an independent or be prepared to join the Big-12. I don't think they'll do that.

The only other scenario I see is if the ACC schools can break out and don't find a landing spot, they can lead the drive to start a new conference like I outlined earlier and pull top programs from the Pac-12 and Big-12, which would basically drop what remains of those 3 conferences (ACC/Big-12/Pac-12) to AAC/CUSA level.

Otherwise, I honestly don't believe anything else will happen with Big-10 or SEC expansion unless/until Notre Dame makes itself available. I think FSU and Clemson are probably screwed.

 

You think it's that easy. I'm telling you it's not. At that point, there is exactly ZERO reason to care anymore. And it also provides a way for those "left out" to chart their own courses. May be exactly what we need to clean this mess up.

 

We're pretty much in agreement. ESPN and FOX don't have the deep pockets they once had, and are facing increased costs, with decreasing revenues. Adding more schools to the B1G and SEC means more money FOX and ESPN has to pay out respectively. If ESPN, for example, pays $10 million for secondary PAC rights, that's a bargain to be able to show Oregon and UW games as compared to even a 2/3 share of B1G, which is $40 million. Same goes for Clemson and FSU, who ESPN is getting at a true, bargain basement price for Tier 1 rights.

And while large institutions are risk adverse, the PAC will likely need to take a risk on Tier 1 rights with a streaming option; most likely Apple at this point. If streaming succeeds, it opens up a whole new world of negotiations the next round in a few years. If it fails, then I think we'll be living in a world where the B1G and SEC take a few more teams and break away.

Negotiations also take a lot of time. When Texas and OU announced they were leaving for the SEC, a couple of BIG12 schools turned to the PAC and asked to join. USC squashed this by stating without OU and TX, no BIG12 schools were worth listening to. The reality was, however, USC had already started negotiating with the B1G, and adding 4 teams to the PAC would mean a GOR renegotiation, and would have locked USC out of the B1G. Unfortunately, this happened around the same time the former PAC-12 Commissioner was leaving, who was an idiot, and the new guy, Kliavakoff, was blind-sided in his first few weeks in office.

My guess is the ACC schools are stuck. The FOX and ESPN bankrolls are telling the B1G and SEC respectively no more expansion at this point. And there just hasn't been enough time to really work out details for a 3rd conference with the best of the rest P5 schools. But if streaming in the PAC is successful, there might be money for ACC to leave and create a new conference a few years down the road.

 

Teams should definitely be separated into levels that make sense. MLB teams don’t play double a and single a teams. There are no more than 30-40 that should be in the top level.

 

Like I said, opportunity. I'd personally love it if UF (and a bunch of others) chose the lesser (more legitimate) division and went back to the old rules. Talk about the perfect way to stick it to the NIL scum.

 

The SEC media deal pays $3 billion per year, while the Big Ten media deal pays $7 billion? How did that happen?