If You Could Move UNC to the SEC or B1G...

[gauchoheel]

Would you?

Consider not just the change in competition, but also in TV money, attendance, etc.

At this point I think membership in one of those conferences would add an additional $15-20 million annually in TV money for UNC athletics. I guess the question is, will that gap be sustained in the longer term? And if it is, does it jeopardize UNC basketball's strength to be consistently pulling in less than even middle tier teams like Iowa, Wisconsin, South Carolina, etc?

For competition, you could assume UVA would come along with UNC as the 16th team to one of those conferences. UNC and Dook would play once per year out of conference like UK-UL. But most of the other ACC rivalries would be lost.

Let's ignore the Grant of Rights for this exercise. I'm curious what other people would like to see happen with our conference affiliation long term. I believe this question boils down to balancing money vs preserving rivalries, unless you think the ACC can somehow close the revenue gap that football creates.

 

[imajericho]

No

 

[tarheel0910]

No, however I would be more than willing to let moo u go no strings attached.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No.

There are some teams I'd let go, but we shouldn't go anywhere.

There are also some teams I'd add. Like them or not, S.Carolina needs to rejoin the ACC.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

ACC money is fixing to become comparable to either conference. That being said...


SEC! SEC!

 

[ACT ONE]

ACC money is fixing to become comparable to either conference. That being said...


SEC! SEC!

As a Kentucky fan I would love to see UNC in the SEC. At least there'd be another school who appreciates basketball.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

As a Kentucky fan I would love to see UNC in the SEC. At least there'd be another school who appreciates basketball.

Yeah, Phillips Arena / the new Georgia Dome could probably charge whatever they wanted for SEC Tournament ticket packs.

 

[ACT ONE]

Yeah, Phillips Arena / the new Georgia Dome could probably charge whatever they wanted for SEC Tournament ticket packs.

Even though it's not a big media market I'd love to see the SEC add Kansas too. If the SEC did that then I'd believe they'd be serious about basketball, but I don't see that ever happening unfortunately.

 

[viking131]

Nope!

 

[Archer2]

No way Jose.

 

[Tom79]

Or, who would the ACC consider from either of those conferences...hmm?

 

[tarheel0910]

Or, who would the ACC consider from either of those conferences...hmm?

If I'm looking at this from a geographical/TV market angle I would say AL, GA, Auburn, TN and UK from the SEC. From the Big whatever I would say just PSU.

 

[RoseHeel]

No. Not at all.

 

[gary-7]

Would you?

Consider not just the change in competition, but also in TV money, attendance, etc.

At this point I think membership in one of those conferences would add an additional $15-20 million annually in TV money for UNC athletics. I guess the question is, will that gap be sustained in the longer term? And if it is, does it jeopardize UNC basketball's strength to be consistently pulling in less than even middle tier teams like Iowa, Wisconsin, South Carolina, etc?

For competition, you could assume UVA would come along with UNC as the 16th team to one of those conferences. UNC and Dook would play once per year out of conference like UK-UL. But most of the other ACC rivalries would be lost.

Let's ignore the Grant of Rights for this exercise. I'm curious what other people would like to see happen with our conference affiliation long term. I believe this question boils down to balancing money vs preserving rivalries, unless you think the ACC can somehow close the revenue gap that football creates.

Good Lord no.

 

[gauchoheel]

For those answering, do you mind explaining your choice? That is more interesting to me than simply the answers.

For those stating they'd like to poach teams from the SEC/B1G, what incentive do you see the ACC offering that would make them leave their current set-up? With the current situation they'd be losing quite a bit of money by leaving those two conferences.

For those proposing kicking members out of the ACC, who/why/how? I get we want Moo out, but that seems unlikely. More possible would probably be teams like BC or especially Wake that are taking far more money than they are contributing to the conference.

 

[gary-7]

For those answering, do you mind explaining your choice? That is more interesting to me than simply the answers.

For those stating they'd like to poach teams from the SEC/B1G, what incentive do you see the ACC offering that would make them leave their current set-up? With the current situation they'd be losing quite a bit of money by leaving those two conferences.

For those proposing kicking members out of the ACC, who/why/how? I get we want Moo out, but that seems unlikely. More possible would probably be teams like BC or especially Wake that are taking far more money than they are contributing to the conference.

Football driving the car has already tainted college sports with the nonsensical musical-conferences realignments. Conferences should be limited to 12 members max. The ACC should stay true to its basketball roots and culture.

 

[gary-7]

Yeah, Phillips Arena / the new Georgia Dome could probably charge whatever they wanted for SEC Tournament ticket packs.

They sure as hell can't sell it out now... and most of the people there are kentucky fans. SEC tourney tix can be had below face. Hell, I've had people just give them to me without asking 3 times since I've been in ATL. The SEC SUCKS as a basketball conference --- even when they have some good teams ---because it's just not part of the culture. Is that where Carolina people want to be? I wouldn't think so.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

They sure as hell can't sell it out now... and most of the people there are kentucky fans. SEC tourney tix can be had below face. Hell, I've had people just give them to me without asking 3 times since I've been in ATL. The SEC SUCKS as a basketball conference --- even when they have some good teams ---because it's just not part of the culture. Is that where Carolina people want to be? I wouldn't think so.

Yes, I'm aware it doesn't sell out currently, since I live 10 miles from it. I'm saying it would with a UK - Carolina combo.

 

[gary-7]

Yes, I'm aware it doesn't sell out currently, since I live 10 miles from it. I'm saying it would with a UK - Carolina combo.

Yeah. I suppose the arena would be two shades of blue.

Honestly, having been lucky enough to go to two ACC Tourneys sveral years ago, when I went to my first SEC tourney (for free) I was shocked at how sparce the crowd was and the lack of atmosphere. By comparison it was like going to a womens tourney.

 

[uncfan in ky]

Why in the world would Carolina want to leave the premier basketball conference? Carolina basketball IS THE ACC !!!!

 

[gauchoheel]

Football driving the car has already tainted college sports with the nonsensical musical-conferences realignments. Conferences should be limited to 12 members max. The ACC should stay true to its basketball roots and culture.

Well, the issue is how important is it to stay true to basketball when it starts causing large funding gaps for the whole athletic department? That is what AD's are facing, and it's what is causing realignment. There's a reason UConn would kill to get in the ACC, and it's not because of our basketball strength.

 

[gauchoheel]

Why in the world would Carolina want to leave the premier basketball conference? Carolina basketball IS THE ACC !!!!

Because being in the ACC is costing UNC $10-20 million a year in TV money at the moment. That's money that could be spent hiring/retaining coaches, improving facilities, etc. For example it would greatly improve the chances of keeping Fedora. In basketball, we're lucky Roy is so loyal, as he's currently way underpaid compared to his peers. What happens the first time South Carolina outbids us for our basketball coach? Or heaven forbid steals away our next head coach? They are currently pulling in >$20 million more per year than us. That money's got to be spent somewhere.

Athletic Revenues: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

 

[tarheel0910]

Because being in the ACC is costing UNC $10-20 million a year in TV money at the moment. That's money that could be spent hiring/retaining coaches, improving facilities, etc. For example it would greatly improve the chances of keeping Fedora. In basketball, we're lucky Roy is so loyal, as he's currently way underpaid compared to his peers. What happens the first time South Carolina outbids us for our basketball coach? Or heaven forbid steals away our next head coach? They are currently pulling in >$20 million more per year than us. That money's got to be spent somewhere.

Athletic Revenues: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

That TV money gap will be closing once the ACC channel has been up and running for a few years. It will never be SEC type money, but it won't be a huge gap. As far as being outbid for coaches go, there is not a school on the planet that could ever outbid us for a basketball coach. The boosters would never let that happen. Roy could demand $10 million a year tomorrow and that money would be there in about 48 hours. We could outbid most schools for Fedora as well. The issue with him is would we be willing to pay him enough to keep him.

 

[uncfan in ky]

Because being in the ACC is costing UNC $10-20 million a year in TV money at the moment. That's money that could be spent hiring/retaining coaches, improving facilities, etc. For example it would greatly improve the chances of keeping Fedora. In basketball, we're lucky Roy is so loyal, as he's currently way underpaid compared to his peers. What happens the first time South Carolina outbids us for our basketball coach? Or heaven forbid steals away our next head coach? They are currently pulling in >$20 million more per year than us. That money's got to be spent somewhere.

Athletic Revenues: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

The day The University Of North Carolina has to outbid South Carolina for a basketball coach is the day hell freezes over!!!!
Nothing against Coach Fedora but he's not bringing in ACC championships, do you really want him competing for SEC titles???

 

[DSouthr]

Football driving the car has already tainted college sports with the nonsensical musical-conferences realignments. Conferences should be limited to 12 members max. The ACC should stay true to its basketball roots and culture.

Gary, this isn't aimed at you my friend but you hit on a notion that grates on me hard, this notion of the ACC being a basketball conference that should keep it's basketball roots? That notion just drives me totally off the deep end because it sends the message that the ACC should not care about football, even thou as you offer, football pays the way. Football brings in the huge mega bucks, the SEC has the revenue they have because of football, basketball is relatively a tip for the waiter.

I don't like branding of a basketball conference or a football conference, I want us winners in ALL sports! I don't want football given the short end any more than I would accept basketball getting it, I want BOTH sports crazy successful on par with each other as opposed to at odds with each other. To clarify, I do not want basketball to drop down to where we are in football, I want our football program to rise to the level of our basketball success with no slippage in basketball. I see no reason that can not happen. I want them both considered national title contenders annually.

As a conference football over all is getting much stronger, as a school our football program is sustaining more consistent success than we have in a long time. I see no reason that can not continue while basketball as a conference and UNC can not sustain our basketball power.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Yeah. I suppose the arena would be two shades of blue.

Honestly, having been lucky enough to go to two ACC Tourneys sveral years ago, when I went to my first SEC tourney (for free) I was shocked at how sparce the crowd was and the lack of atmosphere. By comparison it was like going to a womens tourney.

Unfortunately, sparse attendance at all conference tournaments will be the new normal until conferences figure out a way to trim the tourney down.

The ACC Tournament is now at FIVE days in length. That's absurd. No one can -- or should -- afford to miss four days of work and pay for four or five days/nights in a hotel room.

The ACC needs to trim the fat and re-shuffle the ACCT by doing one of two things:

1. Restricting it to the Top 12 or Top 9/8 teams.
2. If they want to keep it at 100% qualification, move the 12/13 10/15 11/14 games to the preceding weekend, to the better seed's home gym. Thus starting the tournament at 12 teams, instead of 15

IMO, they need to make it a 3-day tourney again -- Fri/Sat/Sun. Restrict it to the Top 8 (i.e. you're in the top half of the league) OR wittle it down to a Top 8, using the format above I pointed out, and then have the tournament proper be three days.

Sorry for the rant, but I feel really strongly about this lol.

 

[gauchoheel]

I agree with Dave. I'm a big fan of both, and I hope UNC can sustain success in both. Given that this is a basketball board, I'm concerned that the revenue gap football causes will have a spillover effect and harm basketball. The big football schools are making $40-50 million in profit off of football alone, and there's no reason you have to reinvest all of that money into football. I think you're seeing that with the recent uptick in recruiting at schools like Alabama and Auburn. They're injecting a ton of money into the program so the teams are more attractive to kids.

Whether that's enough to really turn the tide (pun intended) I'm not sure. It's a risk though. And you're seeing that in how frantically basketball schools like UConn are looking to get into a P5 conference. They recognize if Auburn can double their baskeball spending, that puts their dominance on the court in jeopardy. The Big East schools are facing similar threats.

We don't face nearly as big of a threat, because the ACC makes a hell of a lot more money than the Big East or AAC. It looks like I overestimated the gap a little. Here's a recent estimate (http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm...-sports-can-the-sec-be-caught/2/#5e388f512409) that shows we're pulling in $24 million per school (I lowered their payout for Notre Dame and added back in Orange Bowl revenue), vs $31 million for the B1G and $37 million for the SEC. So it's not a $20 million gap, although there are some projected gains in the conference TV networks for both the B1G and SEC.

So we're losing about $13 million per year compared to every SEC school. The ACC Network should close some of the gap. This article (http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/what-s-the-acc-network-worth-071916) gives a healthy estimate of $6 million in profit per school from the ACC Network. With some gains in the SEC Network's fees, we'd probably be about $10 million per year behind. That makes me somewhat uncomfortable, but it's a gap I can live with.

The real question is what other changes are on the horizon. The Notre Dame relationship is huge, and if they were to join that would be a big boon. Here's a bit more about that (http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...ghting-irish-acc-network-john-swofford-072516). They will reap a full share of ACC Network profits, but I think they are still adding more than they're taking.

I'll leave one more article, about Dook (http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/article/why-football-matters). I know they are the last team we want to emulate, but I just want to highlight that even they see how football determines so much for the entire athletic department. It's why they've poured boatloads of money into giving Wallace Wade a facelift, removing the track, redoing the stands, adding a giant luxury suite tower, and revamping their practice facilities. They couldn't give a Rat's behind (pun intended) about football, except that they know they must at least be competitive or they risk getting left out in future conference reshuffling.

My only concern in this is to make UNC athletics as successful as possible. I'd rather have us win national titles in the SEC than struggle to do so against our hated rivals in the ACC. Now whether the difference in conference affiliation is that stark is uncertain, it looks like it's not make or break. I do want us to be on top of future changes though and not stuck in a bad situation because of nostalgia, and I think moving conferences is at least a worthy topic for discussion.

 

[gary-7]

Well, the issue is how important is it to stay true to basketball when it starts causing large funding gaps for the whole athletic department? That is what AD's are facing, and it's what is causing realignment. There's a reason UConn would kill to get in the ACC, and it's not because of our basketball strength.

If the NCAA had any sense --- and of course we all know they don't --- there would have been a kibash slapped down on conference expansion (with the aforementioned 12-team limit). That would have stopped schools from chasing football money and limited the power of the worst culprit (SEC). The irony is that the NCAA SHOULD protect basketball because March Madness is their main source of revenue. Unlike football $$$, a good deal of NCAA Tourney money actually goes to the NCAA.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

If the NCAA had any sense --- and of course we all know they don't --- there would have been a kibash slapped down on conference expansion (with the aforementioned 12-team limit). That would have stopped schools from chasing football money and limited the power of the worst culprit (SEC). The irony is that the NCAA SHOULD protect basketball because March Madness is their main source of revenue. Unlike football $$$, a good deal of NCAA Tourney money actually goes to the NCAA.

The NCAA created the expansion craze because they set the # of schools required to have a football conference championship game at the arbitrary amount of 12. Thus, the SEC went out and grabbed Arkansas and South Carolina.

If the NCAA had simply allowed conferences to have a CCG at 10 or 8 schools, then expansion may have never happened in the first place.

Of course, NOW the NCAA has decided it doesn't care and that you can have one with only 10 schools (Big 12). Face palm lol

 

[gauchoheel]

Yeah, the NCAA is simply the combined power of the schools. It doesn't really make sense to call into question the NCAA's logic unless you also think the schools aren't pursuing their best interests. Whatever the schools decide to pursue, the NCAA must follow suit. There's just a lot more money in football, so naturally the formation of the schools (and the stances the NCAA takes) is to maximize the flow of it to them.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Yeah, the NCAA is simply the combined power of the schools. It doesn't really make sense to call into question the NCAA's logic unless you also think the schools aren't pursuing their best interests. Whatever the schools decide to pursue, the NCAA must follow suit. There's just a lot more money in football, so naturally the formation of the schools (and the stances the NCAA takes) is to maximize the flow of it to them.

That's what I'm saying. The schools, for whatever reason, decided 12 needed to be the number. I don't think they foresaw some of the issues larger conferences would bring about -- like unbalanced schedules, murder of long-standing rivalries, etc.

 

[gary-7]

Gary, this isn't aimed at you my friend but you hit on a notion that grates on me hard, this notion of the ACC being a basketball conference that should keep it's basketball roots? That notion just drives me totally off the deep end because it sends the message that the ACC should not care about football, even thou as you offer, football pays the way. Football brings in the huge mega bucks, the SEC has the revenue they have because of football, basketball is relatively a tip for the waiter.

I don't like branding of a basketball conference or a football conference, I want us winners in ALL sports! I don't want football given the short end any more than I would accept basketball getting it, I want BOTH sports crazy successful on par with each other as opposed to at odds with each other. To clarify, I do not want basketball to drop down to where we are in football, I want our football program to rise to the level of our basketball success with no slippage in basketball. I see no reason that can not happen. I want them both considered national title contenders annually.

As a conference football over all is getting much stronger, as a school our football program is sustaining more consistent success than we have in a long time. I see no reason that can not continue while basketball as a conference and UNC can not sustain our basketball power.

Not saying that at all Dave. What I am (accurately) pointing out is that football is driving the ship and basketball nationally is suffering because of that. To say go with the flow is frankly short-sighted and will do more harm than good in the long run. As you know one of my degrees is from Auburn, and yes, I'm a huge AU football fan. That being said I think the SEC has been allowed to skew the college athletic model into the current state. I agree that UNC should be able to succeed in both sports but had the SEC been reined in as they should've been we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[gary-7]

Unfortunately, sparse attendance at all conference tournaments will be the new normal until conferences figure out a way to trim the tourney down.

The ACC Tournament is now at FIVE days in length. That's absurd. No one can -- or should -- afford to miss four days of work and pay for four or five days/nights in a hotel room.

The ACC needs to trim the fat and re-shuffle the ACCT by doing one of two things:

1. Restricting it to the Top 12 or Top 9/8 teams.
2. If they want to keep it at 100% qualification, move the 12/13 10/15 11/14 games to the preceding weekend, to the better seed's home gym. Thus starting the tournament at 12 teams, instead of 15

IMO, they need to make it a 3-day tourney again -- Fri/Sat/Sun. Restrict it to the Top 8 (i.e. you're in the top half of the league) OR wittle it down to a Top 8, using the format above I pointed out, and then have the tournament proper be three days.

Sorry for the rant, but I feel really strongly about this lol.

I hear ya. And once again the elephant in the room is the sheer number of teams. Roy is genuinely pissed at the expanded regular season conference schedule coming and with damned good reason. Here again, max out at a 12-team conference and it's at least manageable.

 

[gary-7]

The NCAA created the expansion craze because they set the # of schools required to have a football conference championship game at the arbitrary amount of 12. Thus, the SEC went out and grabbed Arkansas and South Carolina.

If the NCAA had simply allowed conferences to have a CCG at 10 or 8 schools, then expansion may have never happened in the first place.

Of course, NOW the NCAA has decided it doesn't care and that you can have one with only 10 schools (Big 12). Face palm lol

And hey, you're preaching to choir here as well. I could at least live with 12 because that still guarantees to leave enough teams to have traditional/regional ties to make up viable conferences, but once the damned SEC went all-in on pure-ass greed and brought in two more teams that absolutely do not belong (Mizzou and A$M) all bets were off. Worst thing to happen to college sports that I can remember.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I hear ya. And once again the elephant in the room is the sheer number of teams. Roy is genuinely pissed at the expanded regular season conference schedule coming and with damned good reason. Here again, max out at a 12-team conference and it's at least manageable.

Right, that sounds good to say in the hypothetical. But in reality, the conferences aren't going to downsize and 15 is the number with which we are working.

Therefore, the ACC needs to proactively reshuffle the ACCT before it dies a slow death (from an attendance standpoint). Morph it back into a 3-day 8-team tourney, or at worst, morph it into a 3 day/4 night tourney with a play-in game on Thursday night, then the tournament proper on Fri., Sat., Sun. If the conference members insist that all 15 teams qualify for the tourney, then you'd have to make it a 4-day, 12-team tourney proper, and you'd weed out the bottom 3 the preceding weekend like I pointed out above.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

No way, no how!

Tradition means something at UNC and the U is not hurting for money. Selling out to chase the money would be a death knell for the Tar Heel Way and our Family atmosphere. The ACC is doing fine in football check our bowl and draft records. We are increasing our monies and will soon add a 16th member, most likely ND. Once we add ND and the Network our monies will catch up and we will not have compromised our traditions. I also question the bball only perspective. How many teams have we put in the playoffs and in the championship games? How does our bowl record compare to the "football" conferences? Where do we stand in putting peeps in both the NBA and NFL drafts?

Why fix what ain't broke?

 

[tarheel0910]

No way, no how!

Tradition means something at UNC and the U is not hurting for money. Selling out to chase the money would be a death knell for the Tar Heel Way and our Family atmosphere. The ACC is doing fine in football check our bowl and draft records. We are increasing our monies and will soon add a 16th member, most likely ND. Once we add ND and the Network our monies will catch up and we will not have compromised our traditions. I also question the bball only perspective. How many teams have we put in the playoffs and in the championship games? How does our bowl record compare to the "football" conferences? Where do we stand in putting peeps in both the NBA and NFL drafts?

Why fix what ain't broke?

ND isn't joining the ACC for football anytime soon.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Then we wait, period.

Nothing is wrong with the ACC so there is no hurry. If, in the mean time, some peeps want out, I say we contract and let the chips fall where they may!

 

[TarHeelNation11]

and the U is not hurting for money.

This isn't entirely accurate, with respect to athletics. The Rams Club needs more members -- the RC has a pathetically small # of members, relative to UNC's living alumni population.

 

[gauchoheel]

Right, that sounds good to say in the hypothetical. But in reality, the conferences aren't going to downsize and 15 is the number with which we are working.

Therefore, the ACC needs to proactively reshuffle the ACCT before it dies a slow death (from an attendance standpoint). Morph it back into a 3-day 8-team tourney, or at worst, morph it into a 3 day/4 night tourney with a play-in game on Thursday night, then the tournament proper on Fri., Sat., Sun. If the conference members insist that all 15 teams qualify for the tourney, then you'd have to make it a 4-day, 12-team tourney proper, and you'd weed out the bottom 3 the preceding weekend like I pointed out above.

I think the ACCT is outside the scope of this thread. But while we're on that topic, I don't see a problem with 15 teams from a financial standpoint. Even if the first night only has 3,000 fans per game, it's still probably profitable. Do you need to buy tickets for all of the days together or something?

From a competitive standpoint, I agree that only 8 teams should make it in. No sense in having everyone play, it devalues the regular season. But hey, all of these moves have always been about making money.