Mouse vs the Fox, why wouldn't the Mouse want to merge the ACC PAC to keep
the remaining 8-10 schools and the late Pacific window for themselves? They lost a lot of content when they lost the B1G, seems like they would want to get that filled and not lose the Pacific Coast. Some other points:
*PAC would be able to keep a regional schedule for their non-revenue sports, that would help them with recruiting and academic time for their athletes. Schools like Stanford and Cal care more about that than most. The only necessary travel is when they come together for the Conference Championships, and they are already doing that once the NCAA tournaments start.
*This might allow Notre Dame to stay independent, but have a national schedule. I think they would have to add more conference football games, but they already like to play on the east coast, west coast and more lately in the south.
*This might the third conference that fits into the Power 3 that has been mentioned several times lately. John Skipper former President of ESPN sports said last month he thinks that a merger would allow the ACC to step up their money considerably,
*Skipper also said that bifurcation is coming to the top, and he believes basketball will be a part of it. He said that the basketball tournament could easily break off with approximately 64 schools instead of over 300 schools sharing the money. That could be a windfall for conferences with strong basketball teams, like the ACC.
*At the recent ACC Conference meetings, the incentive pay for the top was not only approved for football, but they had to include basketball to get the vote passed.
*The PAC could piggyback on the ACC for a Conference Channel, and of course with the linear ACC deal. As we all know, their Linear negotiations have not gone well at all, so far.
*Just some thoughts knowing that the top tier conferences want to be ramped up in 2024 to take advantage of the 12 team playoff. Maybe that is why Herbstreit said big expansion changes after the 2023 season, if not sooner.
67 Replies
T
Truthahn
3y
If the PAC stays together for now, we need to partner with them to get a few teams each from the B12 in 2030.
The ACC would have to lead, because no one will leave the B12 to join the PAC without the B12 losing a couple of their top football teams first. After that, the B12 would be in rebuild mode again and the PAC could finish them off. Then both the PAC and ACC get CFP byes every year like clockwork.
If we don't do this, there is a big risk that the B12 pulls several top teams from the PAC, and ends up taking the #3 spot from us. Can you imagine us staying #3, if the B12 gets Wash, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona, Utah and Colorado?
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
P2, but it's not happening. The ACC had their chance with every single team in the current B12. It's cool to fantasize, but 2036 is a long way down the road, and while you may get a bump in your contract "look in", there is no way you will get the kind of money to be able to pick teams like the SEC or BIG.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
3y
The main thing that will keep FSU and Clemson happy in the long run is if they realize they are likely to host playoff games while in the ACC, whereas in the B10 or SEC that is very unlikely. That and uneven CFP payouts, could keep them very happy with the ACC.
Another thing that will keep Clemson and FSU interested in the ACC, as you point out, is more money. Raiding the B12 of it's best teams and destroying it is basically raiding it of its money. It is the best way to get more TV money out of a contract "look in". If the ACC adds two B12 teams and the PAC gets four or six from the B12, then all of the B12 tv money will pour into the ACC and the PAC. That means there really will be a P4, or at least a CFP 4.
There are two ways to improve our situation. One is the narrow the separation between us and the P2, and the other is to widen the separation between us and the B12. My suggestion does both.
We underestimated the B12 last year. We had a clear shot at them then. I advocated taking Baylor and OK State before the new B12 GOR, which would have knocked the B12 out of the P5 completely. But we passed, and now the task is harder. We messed up by standing pat. Heck, last year, taking WVU might have been enough. But not now.
Now the B12 is a big threat to the ACC, IMO. It will especially suck for us if UCF starts winning the B12.
But if we get lucky and, say, Cincinnati and BYU start dominating the B12, we could probably do this.
** Edited by Truthahn at 7/1/2023, 11:07:19 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
by not poaching some B12 schools when they were floundering. as a matter of fact, the B12 would not exist as a threat if the ACC, PAC, or both extended invites. The past however, can not be replayed.
The killer thing about UCF is that the B12 renegotiates their contract again in 6 years. It is entirely possible that UCF will be making more money then FSU and Clemson moving toward the end of the ACC contract. How mind blowing is that - it's tough to wrap your head around such a scenario. I goes to show just how bad the ACC contract is, not necessarily how much better the B12 is.
Maybe you can help me out on something, VT was independent until the Big East. The ACC decimated the Big East, so I'm not sure why many VT fans are so loyal to the ACC.
The goal is to make the expanded playoffs, and do well in the NCAA tournament - that is where the money is for VT. having a conference that makes more money then another one, might be a measuring stick, but it's irrelevant from my perspective. If you look at the athletic budgets of the top teams in the BIG and SEC, you will find that they have been richer, and outspending VT in every category, not only for decades, but from almost the beginning of time. They have ALWAYS had a money advantage - that will not change.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
3y
I agree, the ACC won't catch up to the B10/SEC, unless hell freezes over. They would have to mess up royally to allow the ACC to catch up with them.
All we can do is separate ourselves from the PAC/B12, which would be a big improvement over our current situation. Some small moves could help a bit (like dumping Wake for SMU), but we need to raid either the B12 or the PAC, at least by 2030 to really get it done.
UCF could be a big problem for us. If they get more money and success than Clemon and FSU, we are in for big trouble.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
As is, the charm and mystique of the NCAA basketball tournament is the whole idea of the cinderella story. you take that away and much of the appeal of the tournament goes away with it. If the money only goes to the 64, then programs will start going by the wayside.
At some point, the schools have to start thinking about the greater good and health of NCAA sports as a conglomerate. Once we start eliminating access and money to schools, then the NCAA as a whole will suffer.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
yet, so call me skeptical that they will in the future. I do think they could possibly expand the NCAA tournament with 90+ teams and then pay the Sweet 16 like they are going to pay the football playoff money. That would keep the money in the early rounds going to the 300+ other NCAA schools, but I am not even sure they will do that.
(In response to this post by HokieToph)
3y
The 8-15 (or whatever number) best brands in the ACC and Pac12 would be a decent conference with a better contract.
But that only works if you can dump Wake, BC, etc. Don't see that happening.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
Unless somebody offers more money per team for such a merger, It just won't make sense. And what remains of the PAC is worth less per team than the ACC. ACC commissioner said they looked at expansion, but no schools made financial sense.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
are bigger checks for the schools if the ACC and PAC do some type of merger. I am just bringing it up because lately there have been several saying there could be a third Power Conference. The only way I can see that is if ACC & PAC have some type of merger, or if the ACC, PAC and some B12 schools all get together. Who knows if that is even possible, but I do know that the PAC is on the clock for a media deal, and they need something sooner rather than later.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
3y
Compete with the P2. Actually if you just took the top 8 or 9 schools from the ACC you might could compete with the P2. That assumes the top ACC schools get their act together. Like Miami FSU and Virginia Tech.
(In response to this post by Stech)
I don't think that they can. However, what a "best of the rest" conference
COULD do is be more competitive from top to bottom. If you take the best 16 teams to make a PAC-ACC merger, the bottom half of this conference would likely be better than the bottom half of the Big Ten and possible the SEC.
I think the selling point for this hypothetical conference is parity and the fact that it would have no dead weight.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/1/2023, 3:41:37 AM
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
This is nothing but BS unless someone comes up with the money to support it.
The B1X backed off adding a couple more P-10 schools because the money wasn't there. I think Skipper loves painting rainbows, but he is full of crap.
Show me the $$$$$ Skipper, or shut the crap up!
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
Call Favorites list that would blow our mind. So I don’t think he’s just pontificating without some good inside information.
That said, time will tell if the money from ESPN is there to make it worth happening, and the PAC is on the clock and needs to produce a media contract sooner rather than later.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
Appears they have moved on without him, so...
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
with the network. I listen to him and former CEO of Fox Sports Bob Thompson more than anyone else. They have the most experience because they have done it. It’s a competition though between the 🐭 and 🦊, and IMHO they both want their former networks to win, so keep that in mind too.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
I don't see them putting much if any support behind any other conference. The ACC is ESPN's "read-headed step child." They don't want us, and will not do anything to promote us. They are stuck with us as long as we make them money...money they can put towards promoting the SEC.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
3y
In some areas they do desire ACC. Basketball being one. In football they are not soul reason ACC is behind. VT , THE U and FSU allowed mediocrity. The ACC maybe itself could market football better. Sorta like they do UNC and Dook in bball.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
...they are promoting SEC basketball over ACC basketball. If you look at BB time slots, the SEC gets more prime time games and overall games than they give to the ACC.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
3y
most of all. All three are going to pay their coaches enough to compete at the highest level, but that doesn't mean they are great coaches. If Pry or Cristobal start winning National Championships, the money comes in to pay them more. Winning is what creates money for the program most of all.
PS The other big debacle was Miami not playing their games closer to campus. My daughter lived there, with traffic, it's an hour to the stadium, most days.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
They basically don't exist, at least in any numbers outside of the few grads in the area.
I lived there for three years around the turn of the century (when Miami was still winning NCs), and you couldn't find Miami fans in bars on Saturdays anywhere in the city with the possible exception of Coral Gables. It's a "smoke and mirrors" program that relies on billionaires to buy players.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
most recent down period. However, the ACC has had multiple down periods since Miami and VT joined the conference in 2003. Particularly the early years (let's up to maybe 2010) when VT was riding high and the rest of the conference was having trouble remaining consistently good. I'm not sure the hiring the wrong coaches explains that period of time given that Bowden and Beamer were still at the helm. You might even say that ACC football never truly escaped the '00s version of a down period because the other programs couldn't always remain good once they completed their rebuild and the more recent down period may just be a continuation of it.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
3y
however, he was smarter self medicated than the idiots running the shop now.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
They don't give a crap about the ACC in any sport. They belittled ACC football for well over a decade, and have been putting SEC basketball ahead of ACC BB for several years.
We are the conference they have pushed aside, and no additions will come close to making up the difference. The next conference review should give the doubters everything they need to know about how ESPN feels about the ACC. Everyone else already knows.
That's why VT needs two things now: (1) to get a lot better in football, and (2) to continue growing into a B1X size research university. We need to be marketable to both P2 conferences when the time comes to jump.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
and it has been for a long time, is they really have no clue on how to move from their solid original mission to a new mission that connects with their audience. They were a great concept originally of live sports, news and highlights. News and highlights became devalued as the internet and streaming gave almost real time access. They never moved beyond that and do not really do live sports well anymore due to cost cutting measures affecting production. They do a decent job with their sports documentaries and in depth news shows but, the cost to produce and the time from start of production to presentation ready is substantial. ESPN is a lot like Eastman Kodak, they made some bad bets and have had trouble moving beyond a good original idea due to poor leadership decisions.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
3y
Apple or amazon could be decent candidates. I don't mean today, but if either one of those entities REALLY want to get into live sports, .......
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
are the two most frequently mentioned suitors at present and probably the most logical candidates. The question is when will Disney execs reach the decision to sell their former cash cow as opposed to trying to personnel cut the property back to prosperity? Cost cutting works for bloated enterprises but, nobody ever cost cut their way to industry dominance. ESPN has overbid and used the Mouse's checkbook as their own personal piggybank while ignoring sound business practices and effective planning amidst dismal leadership. They are not alone in those issues in the cable TV and entertainment industry.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
the BIG contract - add in CBS, and it was a perfect storm, and timing was perfect for the BIG. The B12 piggybacked that bidding war, as they are the only conference that Both FOX and ESPN share the media rights.
It was reported by some that FOX was more interested in the basketball, but I don't know how true that is. It does have a bearing on the Big East upcoming contract, as they had tremendous exposure on FS1 recently. I will find it very interesting where the next Big East contract falls, as it could be the canary in the coal mine for future baskeball values.
ESPN is not Disney's core business, and if they continue to hemorrhage revenue, and with new leadership coming on board, there very well could be a change. It's also possible the ESPN is spun off with a public offering, but i don't see how they compete financially with FOC, CBS, NBC, Amazon, or Apple without Disney's checkbook.
other than the PAC's contract circus, ESPN's future is the story, and may determine whether or not the recent additions in the BIG and SEC even pan out like they expect.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3y
inflated the B1G deal chasing the ESPN/SEC deal. How much it got inflated versus how much was sleight of hand in terms of available properties and conference realignment remains to be seen. Yormark and the Big 12 were smart grabbing an available chair a year earlier and leaving the PAC 12 looking for a chair before the music stops. As far as piggybacking on that inflation goes I think that remains to be seen in the actual numbers and, more importantly, the source of those numbers. I do not think the Big East will be the canary in the coal mine but, whatever the PAC 12 does and what happens with the actual Big 12 numbers and the next scheduled ACC lookin might be those canaries.
Disney will report, come November, ESPN as it's own division. Reportedly, with strong numbers and maybe as a precursor to whatever exit strategy(IPO/Spinoff, sale, etc.) they will choose. The current layoffs may have the dual motives of stopping cash drain as well as clearing the deck for future balance sheets, P&Ls and cash flow projections by the Mouse swallowing the dirty laundry in the context of the larger corporation and dressing up ESPN for a strong transaction valuation. ESPN as a stand alone entity likely does not possess the cash or the leverage to control future carriage and streaming negotiations but, either as a sister to Disney or with a new parent like Apple or Amazon I think those concerns are likely minimized if not eliminated.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
R
ren_hoek
3y
A few issues need to be resolved...
1. Oregon and Washington are pining for a B1G invite. The question is whether the rest are willing to stick around with them while they wait.
2. Oregon State and Washington State are non starters. Out of the question, no way.
3. Cal sucks at everything and their AD is nearly bankrupt. I'd love to leave them out too.
4. Take one per state to maximize ACC network income: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona, Utah. That's a 5 team division, nice and neat.
5. Take SMU as the 20th team to get Texas ACC network income. DFW is easy travel for everyone.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
** Edited by Stech at 6/30/2023, 10:49:04 AM
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
H
HouClone
3y
ACCN carriage rate to the consumers because of SMU? If Texas or Texas A&M, yes. SMU? I say no.
Might as well invite Ohio Bobcats to get Ohio too.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
2
2hhoop3
3y
of actually passing on. Cable carriage rates(both in footprint and out of footprint) are negotiated between content provider and cable system as part of national carriage agreements and is defined and applied to all states in which the cable provider has systems AND in which the network has schools in footprint.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
What about Colorado? That's a bigger state than Utah.
I also like the idea of going after a Texas team in SMU. People need to remember, this is a money grab for the next decade to keep everyone in the hunt. It is time for the ACC to look at what the actual advantages are in their contract instead of acting like it's a death sentence.
And WRT to SMU, I always feel like they got the shaft with the Death Penalty back in the day. Not that they didn't deserve it, but they seem to be the only school who got it at that time or later. And they were always behind schedule compared to the other second tier Texas schools. Would be interesting to see what they could do in an upgraded conference.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
T
Truthahn
3y
SMU is too small to add, even though they are in Dallas, and Texas. Colorado is a 37K-sized state flagship school.
I'm not sure which is better between AZ and ASU. I think it might be ASU. We would have to be very careful to pick the right one, because the B12 would take the other.
That is another reason to take Colorado over SMU. If we leave Colorado and ASU, those two go into the B12 together, a nice improvement for them, too. We should avoid that.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
I would take Colorado for sure. And the reason to take SMU is the Texas
cable subscribers would add value to the conference via the ACCN. It has nothing to do with its enrollment.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
3y
Even if their academics are a dumpster fire. I do love the idea of just grabbing a bunch of big states, but SMU is tiny.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
You guys are twisting like a pretzel to figure out how the ACC will emerge as a power2 type of conference.
I'm in the B12, and you see what is going on with the PAC.
Guys, that ship has sailed. You can't out flank the B12 because of geography, and the "reported" media deal they have signed.
To me, it would be a no brainer to merge the PAC and ACC, but you have too many schools pizzing in the corner.
You say no way to WSU and OSU in the PAC, but what the heck do you think those schools are saying about BC, Louisville, Wake, and many others in the ACC?
It's not happening.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3y
Being one of the 2 2nd tier conferences should be the goal.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
money difference will not be significant whether there are two or three 2nd tier conferences. The only way to check the P2 is for all non P2 conferences to win in the playoffs, and create fantastic OOC matchups for the ratings.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3y
There is no need to outflank the Big 12. One might say the Big 12 got outflanked when Nebraska and Colorado, and A&M and Missouri, and now Texas and OU decided to leave the Big 12. The Big 12 is no longer the Big 12, just like the Big East is no longer the Big East (albeit, at least a big part of the core of the Big East is still there).
But putting that aside, the narrative that the Big 12 is somehow going to emerge as the "third" conference just because it has the most recent television deal and happens to be geographically centered is just nonsense. And I say that not just as a Hokie, but as someone who has also followed the Mountaineers my entire life.
Rightly or wrongly, the best brands of the ACC and Pac 12-2 are never going to join the Big 12's current configuration. For some, it's for reasons of academic elitism. For others, it's because they have philosophical or political differences with Baylor and BYU that they are unwilling to put aside. And then, some just don't have any interest whatsoever in playing in Ames or Lubbock, much less a tin can stadium in Orlando.
Once the B1G and SEC have finished their next and likely final round of expansion . . . probably four or five years from now when the cost of breaking the ACC GOR can be better balanced against the financial benefits of a move . . . the smart play for the best remaining brands not in the B1G and SEC is to abandon the Big 12, ACC and Pac 12-2 and form a "best of the rest" conference. (If that had happened before USC, UCLA, Texas and OU made their moves, there would definitely be three power conferences.) Now, the smart play is to leave behind the schools that either don't carry their own financial weight (Boston College) or that are cultural misfits (Baylor) and pull together the biggest, best financed public schools and perhaps a select few privates that get left behind, like Stanford and Duke.
The Big 12 is currently more stable than the Pac 12-2 and ACC, but only because there are no brands left in the Big 12 that either the SEC or B1G want. That stability has value, but if the best brands of the ACC get plucked, whatever is left (with the possible exception of Louisville) will either become part of a "best of the rest" conference or, if that does not come to fruition, form a geographically sensible league of eastern schools that would probably include new schools like UConn and South Florida, and perhaps, West Virginia and Cincinnati.
** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 6/30/2023, 8:13:40 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3y
programs that are left on the table - and the sense out here in fly over country, is that we are OK with that. No more *****ing and moaning from Texas, and the Texas network that didn't include the conference. Notice that there is never any talk about Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford ever becoming part of the B12. God bless, if the ACC and PAC can merge with them? Honestly, you can have the blue bloods, the blue blood wanna be's, and the academically elite - and the bragging rights that come with that. Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the B12 will be competitive, and will have a blue collar chip on their shoulder.
If you look at the athletic budgets in the 12, Texas and Oklahoma had budgets that far outspent the rest of the schools in the conference. It wasn't even close.
The parity in the no name conference seems to now be their strength. Top to bottom, including the new four coming on board, all spend about the same amount and they are large enough budgets that they will compete, on the field, and for the eyeballs.
Will there be a newly minted powerhouse that emerges as a dominate team year after year? Or will the competition in that conference send different teams to the playoffs every year? Either way, it is shaping up to be a fun conference to be in.
Add in the emergence of the conference as a basketball power conference, the media dollar game will keep them within striking distance of the P2.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
3y
No one seems confident in moving.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
BC, UL and Wake are already locked in. WSU and OrSt are not.
It is the same reason why FSU and Clemson are STILL in the ACC, even though they'd be better for the SEC than Vandy.
It is also the same dynamic as to why UW and UO are hoping for a B1G invite--on the outside looking in--all the while being clearly better prospects than Northwestern.
With the ACC's situation, it makes sense to take ONE SCHOOL PER STATE. You can fret over Wazzu and Oregon State all you want, but at least deal in reality and try to explain how taking both UW and WSU makes more money for the ACC.
And I don't recall saying anything about the B12. And yes, of course it should go without saying that the B12 would have a geograpy advantage in terms of travel distance. But the ACC offers far better exposure on the East Coast. Nothing in the B12 compares to FSU and Clemson.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
R
ren_hoek
3y
The Big12 only has the stability of the unwanted. The ACC has schools that are desirable to the P2 and a dedicated network that is profitable for both ESPN and the ACC.
Adding the valuable PAC schools would be a boon to all parties, including ESPN. It wouldn't pull even dollar-wise, but it would close the gap and help posture the ACC as the 3rd conference. Sadly, the ACC leadership is sorely lacking in guts, boldness, and vision, so it probably won't happen.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
...for each school will go down, not to mention travel expenses will go up.
If the remaining P10 is so valuable, why can't they get a big fat contract?
If they can't get a nice contract, why in the world does anyone think these remaining P10 schools will automatically increase the ACC's payout if they join forces?
This does not make financial sense.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
R
ren_hoek
3y
Pro rata for each new team is in the ACC contract, per the author, John Skipper. Travel expenses will go up, but taking more PAC teams and scheduling can mitigate that some. ACC network carriage rates will be the in state rate for every state that has a team, per the contract, which will provide an additional pay increase. This is why you take a California team and a Texas team. SMU isn't an earth shattering addition by any means, but their financials indicate that they can compete.
I'm not giddy about any of that, but it's the best way to make chicken salad out of chicken crap until 2036.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
Yup. This is about survival. And if survival means
taking SMU to get the cable subs in the entire state of Texas, then deal me in.
Moreover, I'd be looking to get UW and UO in any way I could. And I'd take one school from California. If Cal or Stanford balk at it, I'd take Fresno State or San Diego State to get the ACCN subs in CA too. I wouldn't be bashful about it either if it means making money and surviving.
It is quite likely that the cable subscription model will disappear in the future. But we are only looking to survive as a conference
until 2036.
I asked a question of this board several weeks ago. I think I got one response. And the question is this. HOW BIG (population) does a state need to be in order to make money via the ACCN subs for the existing members? I assume Texas and California are big enough. But what about the other potential new states?
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
2
2hhoop3
3y
maybe the biggest reason, is because the arrogant former commissioner and the clueless Presidents previously rejected valid and reasonable bids by the networks and now they come hat in hand as a damaged conference seeking a similar deal to what they were previously offered. Idiots best describes them and the situation is akin to Kevin Costner sticking it to the arrogant Seattle GM at the close of Draft Day. We live in a different world today than when those previous offers were made.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
3y
Last season they had 33 late window games (kickoff after 9p.m. ET) and a dozen, or so, were PAC games, mostly in "true" 4th window (kickoff 10:30 p.m. ET) carried on ESPN linear. The rest were: 8 Big Sky games and various Big West, Big 12, etc. mostly on streaming outlets. I think they will let The PAC make their deal with "whomever" and just buy Tier 3 filler content as needed.
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and a full ACC-PAC merger would provide ESPN a ton of content. I just can't see ESPN ponying up enough to 24 schools (25 counting ND's partial share) to keep everyone happy.
Now if the new league purges some of the poorer TV draws from both conferences, it starts to sound doable. As some others have posted below, if you had a 14 or 16 team league with an even East/West split, it becomes a pretty attractive league
For example, the current remaining PAC minus Washington State and Oregon State in one division (8 total)
UVA, VT, UNC, NC State, Clemson, FSU, plus any 2 of GT/Miami/Pitt/Louisville/Duke
Notre Dame gets to keep independence but plays 7 games/year vs the new league members. This shouldn't be that much of an issue since now ND would have a pool of opponents on both coasts.
** Edited by cburgroop at 6/29/2023, 9:15:01 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
3y
recruiting reasons. Hence why Notre Dame rotates its final game of the season between at USC or at Stanford. How would you propose the Coast2Coast Conference satisfy Notre Dame's new requirement without ruffling everyone's feathers?
(In response to this post by cburgroop)
E
EDGEMAN
3y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
every season. One away in November, one at home in October.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
3y
will Notre Dame make the move. It is going to happen.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
"pod divisions" like you see with the NFL now. Notre Dame could be placed in the same division as UCLA and USC just like Dallas is in the NFC East. It might be the cleanest way to protect Notre Dame's CA interests without ruffling the feathers of the other Big Ten members too much.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
3y
The fact the Big Ten has locked down 3 different networks gives them a ton of flexibility in the future to add more schools. They'd just need to make sure the money works, which it most likely will.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
If Stanford is in the new conference then just allow ND to play them every season and rotate the remaining 6 games between the other 13 members. The ND home game would be in the same year as their away game with USC.
If ND is playing 7 total games vs the new conference (one of which is Stanford) it still leaves 5 dates for Navy, USC and whomever else.
Yes it's special treatment for ND but if everyone makes more money as a result it may not matter.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
Stanford at home? The Big Ten already solved that issue by adding both UCLA and USC because Notre Dame would always play 1 at home and 1 away.
(In response to this post by cburgroop)
T
TerryD
3y
San Diego State.
California
Navy in San Diego.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
the possibility that Notre Dame may wanted to have 2 protected conference games with CA schools (i.e. Cal and Stanford) so it could always play 1 at home and 1 away every year. If Notre Dame had 2 protected conference games, then it would be 2 fewer spots in the remaining rotating conference games among the remaining 10/12/14 conference members depending on if the conference has 12/14/16 total football members. If Notre Dame did make that one of its requirements, then it would be interesting to see if the other non-CA schools would be okay with it since it would mean they would now play Notre Dame fewer times during a cycle and longer stretches of time would pass between cycles.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
3y
My brain is not wired for ND football and protected conference games.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3y
would think Notre Dame would want to ensure its CA interests are protected by whatever schedule the Big Ten comes up with.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
It is kind of a Catch 22 when it comes to number of teams to invite.
If you invite too many, the payout per school is smaller, and might defeat the purpose of expansion.
If you invite too few, then there isn't enough West Coast games for the new members, and they will have to play too many games on the East Coast (see: USC and UCLA).
I would love to see a study done on the various options. Thinking the ACCN is what can make up money if you invite this amount of schools, you could probably limit the amount of PAC-team's games on the East Coast to two. These games could maybe even be played back to back with perhaps the second game being a Thursday Night game to limit the time away from campus. This of course to limit cross country flights to just one per year.
California's population is over 39 million.
The other 5 states together are over 28 million.
I'm not sure what that would translate to in new ACCN subscribers. But I thought I'd just throw that out there.
Of course, the elephant in the room is the 2036 GOR. I think UW and UO would have to be convinced that a B1G invite is not coming. And while that's more than a decade of commitment, it can also be enough time to put together a substantive conference product.
(In response to this post by cburgroop)
3y
every team would gain 3 hours on the return trip home. That could be a huge factor when you start to consider the other sports especially the ones that schedule games/matches during the week.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)