I have irritated many over the years showing that ACC pattern all the way back to the founding: doing th4 wrong thing or trying to do the right thing too late. And basketball interests always are at the center of the screw ups. Always. Everett Case would have demanded Wake Forest over even Notre Dame, o to get close the area UGA or GT, in 1953 GT won the National Championship in football in 1952) because of his vision for the basketball tournament.
More Realignment News
- Thread starter tarheel0910
- Start date
Yes, the Pac is dead. Unless teams in the MWC just want that name. And that might be what they should do. SDSU, Fresno St, Boise St, UNLV, UNR, Colorado St, New Mexico, Wyoming could join Cal, Stanford, Washington ST, and Oregon St in the Pac. But that would be a minor conference.
Story doesn't have much merit. The league discussed a scheduling alliance with the Pac-12, but not adding any of its teams to the conference.
That's what I'm irritated about. The Pac was obviously falling apart, so why didn't the ACC call an emergency meeting about offering Oregon, Washington and maybe Stanford and Cal? That allows the ACC to renegotiate the contract. It's not getting you Big/SEC type money, but I would have to think it gets another $15-$20 million. That's the type of out of the box thinking the ACC needs. Instead the conference just sits around and says let's get together in a few days.
I don't think there was interest in adding them to the conference, but more a scheduling alliance to enhance nonconference TV packages.
I understand that, but there should have been interest in the last week when the Pac was falling apart. They shouldn't have waited and watched this week. Should have had an emergency meeting instead of waiting. Reports are that Oregon is only getting paid $30 million. The ACC could have probably doubled that with a renegotiated contract. It seems like the ACC has it's head in the sand. A new revenue sharing model and other tweaks aren't going to work. Especially if FSU can figure out this private equity deal. They're living in the 50's.
They discussed it with the league in May.
A new unequal model will work and is coming. Most of the schools in the league have no choice, so they will have to choose to accept being paid less than Clemson, FSU, Miami and UNC, or if they can somehow find another home, go elsewhere and make even less and not be in a power conference.
Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal discussed leaving the Pac for the ACC in May? Maybe I'm not understanding exactly how the contracts work, but in order for FSU, Clemson, (and I hope) UNC, etc to keep up with the SEC/Big they would need the bottom ACC schools to basically take nothing.
No. There weren't conversations about any Pac-12 team joining the ACC, just conversations about scheduling alliances.
I just feel like the ACC missed an opportunity this week. They actually had an opportunity to grab some bigger names, which is what was needed to renegotiate the contract, and just sat around. There needs to be some urgency and a new way of thinking. Is a restructured revenue plan really going to get the top teams within a reasonable amount of the Big/SEC? I can't imagine that could happen without multiple schools basically being forced out.
And I agree with you. Oregon and Washington football are worth a whole lot. And Cal and Stanford are extremely powerful institutions with major sports histories, especially non-revenue sports. I think we would have need 6 too are it work for them as a Pacific branch of the ACC. ASU and Utah would have competed a very sound 6 team unit. That could have permanently stabilized the ACC. As I have joked elsewhere, the new name could have been A&PCC - Atlantic and Pacific Coats Conference.
What Andrew acknowledges is that once again, ACC leadership failed to take the needed bold step. And only an idiot would have thought that an OOC scheduling arrangement with the Pac would keep Oregon and Washington there and the Pac alive. Those schools needed tp be offered to join the ACC and be pioneers in maiomng a bi-caostal league work.
Last edited:
Adelson and Hale have an article worth reading on ESPN
I think the 2 final paragraphs tell a lot:
"Another school official did not think making loud statements would change any decision a president makes about unevenly distributing television revenue based on ratings. "Why would my president take money out of our pocket and give it to Florida State when it would only hurt us? We need to run an athletic department, too," one source said.
If FSU is planning to leave anyway, an athletic director said, there's little reason to give them more money now. Instead, ACC schools could simply wait for FSU to be the one to cut a sizable check on its way out the door."
The schools that take the position of that fist paragraph above should be asked what P2 would they be asked to join if the ACC comes apart. And the asking should be public.
And FSU should be asked publicly why anybody would agree to any revenue based on TV numbers to give any more to FSU if FSU is itching to leave.
I think the 2 final paragraphs tell a lot:
"Another school official did not think making loud statements would change any decision a president makes about unevenly distributing television revenue based on ratings. "Why would my president take money out of our pocket and give it to Florida State when it would only hurt us? We need to run an athletic department, too," one source said.
If FSU is planning to leave anyway, an athletic director said, there's little reason to give them more money now. Instead, ACC schools could simply wait for FSU to be the one to cut a sizable check on its way out the door."
The schools that take the position of that fist paragraph above should be asked what P2 would they be asked to join if the ACC comes apart. And the asking should be public.
And FSU should be asked publicly why anybody would agree to any revenue based on TV numbers to give any more to FSU if FSU is itching to leave.
That article tells me that the ACC's plan is to hopefully make some changes to revenue and hope the top teams will be so happy about getting more that they won't notice the large gap that still exists and that they think the GoR is bulletproof. That's solid thinking pre 2020, but it's dangerous thinking now.
Yeah, that would save the ACC. Perhaps what we really need is another grand documentary of multiple hours on the ACC Tournament. That's ll do the trick. And then make certain we are ready to add UConn if FSU is able to get out. Nothing like more basketball to make a league stable and so prosperous nobody will ever want to leave.
I agree. But it would be a good start. Andrew seems to be saying that least several schools know the league must cull dead weight and hopes that these type moves will be that incentive. I think they are a bit naive, as always, bit to is far better to adjust revenue based on TV viewer numbers for football than to do nothing.
As noted for two years on premium, unequal revenue sharing has been in the works for a while. The first prong was changing the postseason money aspect. Next is TV money. If athletes can have NIL cash discrepancies within a locker room, so can schools within a conference, is what I have been told by two excellent sources very clued in on what's going on.
I get that and it's good that they are talking about it, but I see two issues. First, it's been two years and it's still in the works instead of being completed. Second, the gap between the SEC/Big is so large that either the top schools are going to have to be ok with there still being a sizable gap or the smaller schools are going to have to agree to such a large cut that they will have to consider cutting sports. Unless you're telling me there's some money coming in that will get the top schools to $80+ million without sacrificing smaller schools.
My main issue still remains that the easiest way to increase revenue, adding brand name teams, was not considered urgent when the ACC had the chance.
Keep in mind the ACC had just gotten a new commissioner right before this window opened. Also, it had to get the postseason stuff through first. And, it was ramped up when UCLA/USC made the move to the Big Ten 13 months ago.
I don't see a path to $80 million, but I do see an area between $62-70 million, not including postseason money. And think about it, if an FSU or Clemson made it to the CFP title game, that could be in the range of another $24-30 million.
The ACC didn't add anyone because it did extensive research on it, and there weren't any schools it could have gotten that would have increased the existing per-team pot.
Adding Oregon and Washington in the last couple of days wouldn't have increased anything? I don't think the Big would have taken them if they didn't have a positive impact. At the very least it would allow the ACC to renegotiate for a larger amount. I guess it doesn't matter at this point. I resigned myself to being in the Big a couple of years ago.
When the BT proved it always would be the BT by by raiding its Rose Bowl partner league, ns that after that Alliance with the Pac and ACC to try to stop the madness, the ACC should have been ready to pounce to add value. When it became clear a few months ago that the Pac almost certainly was going to have major trouble a TV deal worth much, the ACC should have then gone into high gear.
ACC history is filled with too little/too late in everything that has to do with football.
All I can tell you is what I was told by exceptionally well-placed people. And again, to my knowledge there was never any plan to add schools from out west, so I doubt they wasted their time on that, and it would have been a waste of time. The plan was more a scheduling alliance. And, had the Pac-12 commish gotten a better TV deal sooner Oregon and Washington would have stayed. They left because they had no choice, and they aren't getting top dollar from the Big Ten either.
And I'd think more SEC if it ever comes to it if I were you.
Discussions were had this spring, as noted a few times. It didn't work out.
I also think one of the ACC's issues right now is its leadership. Jim Phillips has a growing problem on his hands at Northwestern, and I am not so sure he can lead. If he can't, the league presidents must consider a change, and I'd look to Jack Swarbrick if they do go that way.
Yeah, I know there's a lot of influential people that are saying SEC, but I think the Olympic sports are too important to the school and the academic angle will both end up being the reason we go to the Big. I could be wrong and the powers pick the SEC, but I just have a feeling they'll end up changing their mind.
The best reason to reject the SEC is to give a permanent middle finger to ESPN. It is treating the SCCCthe way a Loan Shark treats his 'business partners.' And the result of that should not be to keep ESPN's boots.
Phillips is soft-handed. He is not up to then task at this time. Swarbrick would be interesting. he is determined and tough. Even nasty as times. If he sees the ACC's needs a necessary to keeping ND football 'independent,' then he would fight tooth and nail.
Interesting, as I have been saying the backlash against college sports will come if this process of destroying leagues to consolidate all 'Majors' together in just 2 conferences continues.
I know that's what people with the power to make that decision have said, I just think that when the decision is actually made, it's going to be the Big. I'm not trying to say you don't have any inside info or your sources are wrong. Just a gut feeling.
They have INSISTED (my bad, major typo earlier) it's a football decision. Oregon and Washington didn't go into the Big Ten with any consideration of sports other than football. Same with USC and UCLA, and same with Texas and Oklahoma the year before to the SEC. Soccer, field hockey, volleyball, etc, do not pay any of the bills and don't pay for themselves. Thsi will be a football-only move, if a move is made.
Last edited:
Not saying your wrong, chances are that's exactly what will happen. I just think it's going to be a last minute switch. I have zero proof or info, just a feeling. Probably just me wanting to stay away from the SEC. Sorta related subject. I don't understand why people don't consider the Big a football conference in these discussions. They're just as much of a football conference as the SEC is. I wouldn't say they are as good top to bottom, but they aren't getting SEC money because of their basketball reputation.
They are getting it beause of football reputation ofnfootablll power on the field either. Starting with the 1970s, the ACC has 7 (6.5 if you prefer) football NCs, while the BT has only 3. The BT money all about TV viewer numbers, which are almost years a close #2 to the SEC and #1 in hoops.
The one thing the BT truly needs to be able to compete with the SEC interms of football quality top to bottom its multiple schools located in the South to bring the BT into the homes of those recruits as a HOME area league. That's the reason the bT adding Oregon and Washington was just stupid - unless they already were certain that they could get no valuable ACC 'football' schools.
The only thing the ACC need to be able to compete head to head with the SEC as almost full equals in football is more member with a massive TV audience. The year ND oiled 10 ACC teams, the ACCC fiosnihed #2, ahead ion the Bt, in average # of viewers per game. I'll bet those damned FSU fans don;t even know that. I doubt Bubba has rubbed it in their AD's face as he should. The ACC is that close, which surely bothers the SEC a great deal. They'd rather destroy the ACC and take what they want than have to compete - they now are just like the damned BT I have always hated. In wouldn't mind if both their headquarters were to be destroyed by an earthquake.
Anyway, if the AC could survive, and also drop Wake and BC and replace with a better pair in terms of TV viewership for football, and get ND to play 6 ACC games per year, the ACC could move on up as the regular second best overall football league and occasionally top the BT in terms of average TV viewers per game.
SEC people on the Net for years have talked about the plan may be to eventually play only 3 sports as SEC: football, basketball, and baseball, and have individual schools arrange matters with anybody they want for all other sports they sponsor.
Holy crap that would immeslely stupid, pure basketball type thinking. You won;pt make a offer to to save most of the Pac and allow Oregon dnWashingtonk, the two with real value, to leave, ans then you want just 2 schools that by themselvs are barely worst more than BC? And they are across the entire continent.
That would be just asking to die. Why not tell FSU just to raid ACC headquarters
There is no end to the oblivious self-destructiveness of a basketball league.
They would be a great addition... last week when Oregon and Washington could come with them. Makes zero sense now.
Less than zero. Unless the purpose is either to kill the ACC or else just make certain everybody knows that basketball is its dope and forever shall be.
The Cal/Stanford thing is one where I can see it either way: just an idiot academic from the dullard midwest or else a plant meant to destroy the ACC.
In many cases, stupidity and evil end up delivering the same results.
