Conference Expansion

It would be hilarious if the 2 were UNC and Clemson

The girls school out west would explode with indignation

 

Probably the best they can do. It remains to be seen if these second tier conf can still generate income if they can’t even pretend to compete for championships. The Ivy League doesn’t get much attention, I wonder how the big 12 will do without a single marque blueblood. Maybe fans will embrace them as true amateur college football.

 

That's exactly right. There really aren't any schools outside the Big-10, SEC, ACC, Big-12 and Pac-12 (and Notre Dame) that have any real value. I'm really surprised that the ACC took SMU. That was a huge stretch and main reason I think this move may have been orchestrated by the rest of the ACC to trap FSU, Clemson and UNC in the ACC. SMU on paper really doesn't make any sense. It's a really small religious school. The only scenario where SMU makes logical sense to me, is if they needed 18 for some reason. SMU just made the decision easy by taking no money.

The Big-12 and ACC will be okay financially. I do believe in the next round of TV deals, the Big-12 and ACC probably won't get anything as lucrative as they have now, but they'll still make a lot of money. As you mentioned, they may be perceived more as what college football SHOULD be.

I think there's going to be a little more stability in the conference structure moving forward. The one thing that could change everything is if Notre Dame makes a move, but I really don't see any reason for them to do anything. UNC, FSU and Clemson are stuck! The only move I see now is Wazzu and Oregon State moving to the MWC. But beyond that, outside of Notre Dame and UNC (maybe FSU, Clemson and UVA could be add ons), there are no programs in the Big-12 or ACC that are going to make the Big-10 or SEC make a move. And there are no programs in the 3rd level that are going to make the ACC or Big-12 make a move.

 

The SEC is done adding teams

 

Agreed on the part I bolded. I'd love to know what the ACC offered NC State to flip their vote because it sure wasn't the prospect of playing SMU in Dallas!

 

Right?! If I was a guessing man, it would be that NCSU thought all along that UNC/NCSU were a pair and that UNC would take care of little brother and make sure they had a landing spot. Somebody probably convinced NCSU that UNC is only looking out for themselves and that NCSU is not in the long term plans for the Big-10 or SEC.

You could tell something was up when UNC came out publicly on it's own the day before opposing the additions. I think they were trying to pressure NCSU, which may have backfired on them.

 

The SEC has no reason to expand right now. There is nothing outside of the current SEC footprint that adds value except Notre Dame. And with the LA and top PNW former PAC teams heading to the B1G next year, zero value out west for the SEC to ever expand coast-to-coast. The top teams in the SEC footprint not in the SEC are Clemson, FSU, and UNC, with Miami following. None of these schools will add money to the SEC pot, and all of them are stuck with the ACC GOR for the better part of the next decade. If the SEC could add these teams at a discount, might be worth looking at the possibilities. But really think these teams will buy out their ACC GOR for a discounted SEC or B1G share?

The SEC is in the catbird seat. They can hold and see how the ACC implodes, assuming it does, knowing full well the SEC can pick/choose what pieces, if any, they wish to add when this happens. Meanwhile, the BIG12 is no threat, and the B1G, if it adds ACC schools like Clemson and FSU, will only be expanding an already large footprint that will be tough on the non-revenue sports.

One larger question out there is can WAZZU and Oregon St. combine with the Mountain West and retain the MWC TV contract will also retaining the PAC's guaranteed playoff spot. I think that's the best option left for the 2-PAC teams. I think a good name for the combined conference is the Broke-PAC-Mountain (stole this from someone else).

Other than some sort of marriage of convenience between WAZZU, Oregon St., and the MWC, I don't much happening in realignment except for FSU, UNC, and Clemson whining about things being unfair until the next round of TV contracts, set to start around four years from now. The ACC GOR seems unbreakable, and the SEC nor the B1G have any reason to give ACC teams full shares.

 

ACC still has teams competing for titles. They are clearly not on sec or big level but they are head and shoulders above the 12. It just seems inevitable that the handful of legit programs in the acc would eventually join the big or sec and those two conferences get rid of the dead weight

 

Just commenting on this one point in your post. My guess (wild ass one) is that SMU sits in a real big TV market. The Dallas/Ft. Worth area has a population of 7.5 million. The population of Texas is almost 30 million.

I am like you and that going after SMU is a real head scratcher. If were not for the TV market in Texas, SMU would not even get a sniff. Also SMU's stadium has a capacity of 32,000 fans. More surprisingly they average 21,000. Televising a game from that stadium would resemble the telecast of a very low tier bowl game.

 

If the acc wanted a footprint in Texas, there are other schools they could have approached. Maybe they got turned down? Also a possibility they didn't want to piss off the big12 by trying to poach one of their Texas teams.

 

Texas HS football has a bigger following than SMU. Bigger boosters too.

 

I would be surprised to learn that SMU was even 3rd in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex. I understand the SMU is a rich school, but to play for no TV money for umpteen years? Are they rich enough to do this and pay enough NIL to be competitive even in the Almost Competitive Conference? At the end of the day, they are just going to find themselves in a second rate conference with a bad TV deal when the ACC implodes in about a decade.

 

Here's the problem with your argument. TV revenue really isn't about metro markets for college sports. It's about statewide and regional carriage. It was this exact misunderstanding that got the ACC in the predicament they are now. In the last rounds of expansion, they made the incorrect assumption that enlarging their footprint by adding metro schools Louisville, Syracuse, BC and Pitt was going to get them statewide carriage in all those states. It doesn't work that way.

It's the blueblood major public land grant universities that have generations of loyal fans statewide that drive carriage. The fact that the SEC and Big-10 completely understood this fact well over a decade ago when they made their additions, while the ACC and Big-12 replaced their losses by added smaller metro schools, is a big part of the reason the conferences are where they are now. To it's credit, the Pac-12 understood this as well, but there just weren't any schools other than Texas and OU that fit the bill and they couldn't make those deals work, plus the size of the Mountain and Pacific time zone TV markets hurt them. But they understood the concept. The Big-10 added PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon. The SEC has added Texas A&M, Texas, OU, Mizzou, USCe, Arkansas, all the top schools in their states. That's why these 2 conferences have pulled away.

Nothing against SMU, but it's a small Methodist university. They may have alumni statewide, but in numbers, it's comparable to a metro school at best. But I don't believe that even within metro Dallas they have a particularly strong following. Texas and A&M still dominate the state and Dallas metro. I know you're not really arguing my point, but just thought I'd clarify why SMU just doesn't help the ACC, other than give them 18 teams . While the ACC has enlarged it's TV footprint into the state of Texas, it's probably barely going to be a blip on the Dallas TV ratings.

For that matter, even though Stanford and Cal are large public land grant universities in a huge state, I don't really thing those 2 programs in the ACC is going to make a huge impact on ACC TV ratings ... other than the fact the ACC will be able to add a late night TV game. This is why I question the ACC basing their expansion decision on the expectation of $70M in additional revenues. Maybe it's in their contract or ESPN already agreed to that, but I find it rather hard to believe.

 

I completely agree that the SEC has no reason to expand unless/until Notre Dame does something. But I'd add UNC to that list. They could bring value to the SEC. I don't think the SEC was ever even slightly interested being a coast-to-coast conference. The only way I see FSU and Clemson coming in is at a discount if the ACC implodes. If they ever find a way out of the GOR, they better be damn sure they have a place to land.

I don't see this as an option. Assuming they go to MWC, which I agree is their best landing spot, the MWC will likely get a small bump for the entire conference TV payout, but they'll still be a third level conference and there's no way they'd retail the Pac-12's playoff spot. I just don't see that happening.

We definitely are on the same page here. I think the ACC, other than a lot of bitching from FSU, Clemson and UNC, has probably locked those schools into the conference for the full term of the GOR. And there's really not much reason for any of the top 4 conferences to do anything for a while.

Any further realignment is likely to be within in the third/fourth level of conferences - MWC taking OSU and WSU. UConn maybe finding a 3rd tier landing spot along with some of the other independents not named Notre Dame. And then jockeying for power between MWC, AAC, CUSA, MAC and Sunbelt. Otherwise, I think things will probably stabilize for a while ... until the ACC starts negotiating the next TV deal!

 

But if they can afford to start winning, perhaps they acquire a fanbase and build tgat stadium. I expect a few schools to emerge under this new format and a few to fade away

 

Please note that I noted that my answer was a wild ass guess.

You are 100% correct on the explanation on TV market factor. That is why I said it was a "head scratcher". That is why I said "wild ass".

Again I will take another leap. It is possible that other players besides the the makers and shakers of the Big 12 (the colleges) made this decision on their own. I would not be surprised if TV executives from one or more of the Networks were stirring the pot.

Again, I say "that I agree with your post".

Again, I say that I am making a big reach in saying that the TV market in Texas could have influenced the decision to add SMU. There are a lot of college football fans in Texas. A lot of them would tune into see the other ACC teams (especially the top ones) to play SMU. (Edited 9/6 note: I had a major brain fart and originally stated Big 12)

Here is a link on how the TV networks are behind the scenes of college football
Link TV Money Built the Modern Power 5. Then Destroyed It..

 

1. Stanford is a private school with an enrollment of less than 18,000
   
   
2. QUOTE="atlantagator86, post: 15492737, member: 312"]Here's the problem with your argument. TV revenue really isn't about metro markets for college sports. It's about statewide and regional carriage. It was this exact misunderstanding that got the ACC in the predicament they are now. In the last rounds of expansion, they made the incorrect assumption that enlarging their footprint by adding metro schools Louisville, Syracuse, BC and Pitt was going to get them statewide carriage in all those states. It doesn't work that way.

It's the blueblood major public land grant universities that have generations of loyal fans statewide that drive carriage. The fact that the SEC and Big-10 completely understood this fact well over a decade ago when they made their additions, while the ACC and Big-12 replaced their losses by added smaller metro schools, is a big part of the reason the conferences are where they are now. To it's credit, the Pac-12 understood this as well, but there just weren't any schools other than Texas and OU that fit the bill and they couldn't make those deals work, plus the size of the Mountain and Pacific time zone TV markets hurt them. But they understood the concept. The Big-10 added PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon. The SEC has added Texas A&M, Texas, OU, Mizzou, USCe, Arkansas, all the top schools in their states. That's why these 2 conferences have pulled away.

Nothing against SMU, but it's a small Methodist university. They may have alumni statewide, but in numbers, it's comparable to a metro school at best. But I don't believe that even within metro Dallas they have a particularly strong following. Texas and A&M still dominate the state and Dallas metro. I know you're not really arguing my point, but just thought I'd clarify why SMU just doesn't help the ACC, other than give them 18 teams . While the ACC has enlarged it's TV footprint into the state of Texas, it's probably barely going to be a blip on the Dallas TV ratings.

For that matter, even though Stanford and Cal are large public land grant universities in a huge state, I don't really thing those 2 programs in the ACC is going to make a huge impact on ACC TV ratings ... other than the fact the ACC will be able to add a late night TV game. This is why I question the ACC basing their expansion decision on the expectation of $70M in additional revenues. Maybe it's in their contract or ESPN already agreed to that, but I find it rather hard to believe.[/QUOTE]

 

Big-12?

We're in total agreement. What I'm saying is the ACC executives are not very intelligent when it comes to TV revenues. I'm sure SMU was hard pitching that they would get the ACC into the "lucrative" Dallas TV market. And the ACC executives, not understanding how TV works, bought in completely.

And I totally agree the TV networks (especially ABC/ESPN) have their own agenda, especially since they realize they over-payed on some of these TV deals they probably can't afford. It wouldn't surprise me at all if ESPN isn't willing to do what it can behind the scenes to renegotiate the ACC and Big-12 deals, now that they're second tier. They might even want to blow up the ACC GOR. Hard to tell.