Do you really seriously think smaller conferences would boycott and lose all the MM revenue? And if they did, do you really think the SEC and Big-10 would change their stance ... whatever that is? I don't. The SEC currently distributes right at $700M per year. The 2023 March Madness accounted for only $34M of that. That's less than 20:1. I know you're talking seasonal revenues above MM payouts, but there's no way the football/basketball revenues are 3:1 for the SEC and Big-10. That may be the case for the ACC and Big-12 that are more heavily invested in basketball, but the Big-10 and SEC both derive a MUCH higher percentage of their revenue from football. FWIW - the Big-12's MM payout last year was $32M, just below the SEC. Now if the SEC and Big-10 stay under the control of the NCAA for football, then your idea of a "threatened" boycott by other conferences may put some pressure on the SEC and Big-10 to make concessions, but this is exactly the reason I think the SEC and Big-10 will probably leave the NCAA for football.
Basketball payouts are based on March Madness. No MM, and no interest in college basketball during the season. Unlike college football, which only competition is MLB for most of the year, college basketball plays on the same dates and times as the NBA and NHL. The NFL could kill college football by playing on Saturdays, but it would ultimately hurt the NFL. How many of us watch on Sundays to follow our favorite alums in the League? I know I do. If enough of the BIG12 and ACC teams back out of MM, then that could as many as 14 or 15 marquee names pulling out of the tournament. Who do you replace them with? More mid-majors and mid-level SEC and B1G teams? Is this a tournament that will draw the same number of viewers? No. Less money, and more reason for the mid-majors to boycott. It would certainly be a gamble on the BIG12's part, and the SEC and B1G are in a much better position being football powerhouses. But I don't think the SEC nor the B1G want to mess with MM. March is the month the entire sports world turns its attention to college basketball. If that goes, then almost all the value in college basketball goes with it.
I actually think college football has significantly more competition for viewership. You've got the NFL (granted there's intentionally minimal overlap), MLB division races and playoffs/WS, NBA starts late October and NHL starts early October. They are right in the thick of the only period where all 4 major pro leagues are active. I also think MM has killed the college basketball regular season. TV ratings, even for marquee games, are really low. Almost nobody, except the most avid basketball fans, watch college basketball until MM. You don't replace them. But I still don't think conferences or schools are going to boycott for an unrelated issue. They might bitch and moan and make threats of a boycott, but I can't see any school actually giving up the MM revenue. Can you imagine how that would go over with the fanbase? Especially since I don't think the SEC and Big-10 are likely to change their tune. I don't think the SEC and Big-10 have any desire to mess with MM, but when it comes to football, they're going to do what they want to do.
If you're a football fan, who are the best players playing on any given Saturday Sept through Nov? College players. If you're a basketball fan, who are the best players playing on any given day during the college basketball season? NBA players. MLB playoffs and the WS are college football competition, but football is king. The idea of a threat of MM boycott by the ACC and BIG12 is to hurt the SEC and B1G. They would lose out revenue too. And likely enough revenue they wouldn't be able to recover the monies from football. It's Mutually Assured Destruction. The BIG12 would lose out on college football money, and in turn, cause the SEC and B1G to lose out on college basketball money. The BIG12 would be much bigger losers, but it's still a lose-lose proposition for all. But I doubt we ever get this far. The SEC will likely never have a 4th window, with no teams west of Texas/OK. The BIG12 does. If the BIG12 is removed from the playoff conversation, then the only games that matter in the 4th window become B1G games. I don't see ESPN allowing this to happen. 4th window isn't as profitable as the others, but they are still are profitable. Especially at BIG12 current prices. BIG12 no longer a part of the college football discussion, that cuts into 4th window profitability for ESPN.
None of it makes sense economically. Stanford and Cal are academic institutions that bring nothing to increasing football dollars. Wazzu and Oregon State add very little
They have to have teams to put on the field I guess. They will become more of a second rate conference than they already are. It’s over for power five. There’s only two. They could barely make a third top conference if they took the top 16 teams not in the big or sec.
I'm not arguing that this would be any sort of financial bonanza for the Big-12. It wouldn't have been for the ACC to take Cal and Stanford either. But at a significantly reduced payout, I think the remaining Pac-12 schools make a lot more sense for the Big-12. I'm talking about if Stanford and Cal came at $7M payout (what ACC was offering) and WSU and Oregon State came in at maybe $4-5M (what they'd get from MWC). I think the addition of those 4 teams would probably bring an additional $30M in TV revenues to the Big-12 and those 4 schools really have no option but to take whatever the Big-12 offers. It would keep them at as second tier program (as opposed to MWC) and for Cal and Stanford the non-revenue sports travel cost and related issues would be significantly reduced in the Big-12 vs. ACC. But there are a few things taking these 4 schools would do for the Big-12: 1 - At the second tier of college football, they would virtually own the central, mountain and Pacific times zones and have a pretty good TV footprint to boot. That would likely allow them to establish a pretty marketable regional Big-12 TV Network to at least compete with the ACC Network. No, it won't get carriage, but going from a predominantly Texas/Oklahoma-centric conference when the old Big-12 Network failed, to adding the four corners and programs up the entire Pacific Coast would make it much more marketable and profitable. 2 - The Big-12 adds 3 more public land grant universities in Cal, OSU and WSU, in addition to already adding the top public universities from AZ (2), CO and UT, plus BYU. There's a much larger multigenerational statewide fan base of these older state universities than the newer metro schools they recently added (UCF, Cincy, Houston) and more prestige to adding these schools compared to the metro schools. That matters. 3 - The Big-12, in my opinion, would distance itself from the ACC to be the pretty clear top second tier conference. Plus they'll have really limited the ACC's options moving forward. Outside of Notre Dame (which isn't happening!), who would the ACC be able to add now? Their absolute best possible options, unless they somehow raid from the Big-12 (unlikely!), would probably be the likes of USF, SMU, UConn, Temple, Tulane, Memphis, Navy, ECU and UMass. Basically, the Big-12 would effectively block the ACC from any further expansion. If UNC, FSU and Clemson find a way out, the ACC probably couldn't survive. And guess who'd be there to pick up the scraps? So while I agree that it may not make a lot of direct economic sense, I do think there are some pretty good reasons taking the remaining 4 Pac-12 schools makes sense for the 4 schools and for the future of the Big-12.
ACC votes to add Stanford, Cal, SMU: Conference presidents approve expansion to 18 schools “Stanford and Cal are expected to enter the ACC from the Pac-12 taking reduced media rights revenue shares of around 30%. SMU, however, will forgo media rights revenue for its first seven years as an ACC member moving from the American.”
By the time SMU starts getting money from the ACC it will be on the verge of it's long sought after collapse.
NC State was smart to switch their vote, better the ACC then the AAC. I'm finding it funny thinking of Clemson, NC and fsu sitting there seething
I'm wondering if this might be the rest of the ACC calling FSU, Clemson and UNC's bluff. The ACC has a clause in their media rights deal that if the ACC drops below 15 members, ESPN can renegotiate their contract (presumedly pay the ACC far less). The additions give the ACC 18 teams, which means even if FSU, Clemson and UNC find a way out, the ACC media rights deal can't be touched. The thought might have been that UNC, FSU and Clemson could leverage that against the ACC, basically saying that if they won't negotiate a lower buyout or release their GOR, they'll leave anyway and blow up the ACC media deal. Now the ACC can tell them to suck it. Now those schools can leave and the ACC will take their buyout and GOR and keep their full TV deal intact. Pretty shrewd move by the ACC to take away any leverage UNC, FSU and Clemson may have had.
Agreed, although in the short term it benefits those three schools if the addt'l revenue generation materializes, because the new 3 schools won't get a full share meaning FSU, Climpson, and UNC will get a larger pro-rata share.
SMU joins the ACC: How the Mustangs rose from the death penalty to an improbable return to a major conference
Yes, but it's hard to say how much. The ACC seems to think the addition of these programs is going to give them about $75M. I'm not sure where that number came from or if it's accurate, but I have a tough time believing those schools will add that much. But then Cal and Stanford will get their chunk. The rest appears from what I've seen will be split into 2 pots (I don't know it it will be even pots). One pot will be split equally between all the existing members (maybe a couple million per school). The other will be used for performance bonuses. They'll get more money but it's probably not going to be nearly enough to make them happy because they expect to make the same money as SEC/Big-10 schools.
Funny part now up here in ACC country is that the rest of the ACC absolutely HATES f$u. Even with this addition, they fully expect f$u to find a way to get out of the GOR. The problem is that f$u is showing their true colors. What conference would take them now? The B12 would. Would the SEC? Maybe the B1G? I'm not so sure. It's fun having everybody from casual fans to the talking heads on talk radio pulling against f$u every time they suit up in any sport now!
