ACC expansion: SMU emerges as potential target along with Stanford, Cal from Pac-12, per reports
The Mustangs were long seen as an expansion candidate for the Pac-12
www.cbssports.com
ACC still looking at picking up more teams
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
www.cbssports.com
SMU? Who else? I cant read the articleACC expansion: SMU emerges as potential target along with Stanford, Cal from Pac-12, per reports
The Mustangs were long seen as an expansion candidate for the Pac-12
SMU is another Wake Forest. Other than being # 6 or 7 in Texas brings very little to the table.
If there going to expand and bring in SMU, they should bring in Tulane that is another great academic school.
They don’t bring anything special to the table in terms of success in any sport (Oregon St in baseball possibly) and they don’t drive TV markets. With those 2 things going against you, no one is going to give up a spot in a major conference for you.
Wouldn’t they at least get a league like the Big 12 into the Seattle and Portland markets?
Washington State is almost 5 hours from Seattle. They are the Spokane market.
Oregon State is a pretty big afterthought in the state of Oregon. They just don’t move the needle. Comparable to Colorado State in the Denver market compared to Colorado
If they joined the Big 12, it wouldn’t generate any additional revenue for Fox or ESPN. Which means it’s unlikely that either network would want to increase the amount that they pay the Big 12. So it would be up to the Big 12 to decide if they wanted to add those schools for other strategic reasons rather than for increased tv revenue.
The problem for the Big 12 is that they don’t have a separate network, so moving to a new market doesn’t drive added revenue for their tv partners. It’s different for the Big Ten and SEC.
To use the SEC as an example, ESPN is able to charge cable companies within the SEC’s footprint an in-market rate of about $1.50 per cable subscriber per month. For states outside of the SEC’s footprint, ESPN is only able to charge about $0.30 per cable subscriber. So if the SEC were to add Washington State, then ESPN would be able to increase the SEC network fee collected from all cable subscribers residing in Washington by about $1.20 per month. Then it becomes a question of whether ESPN feels like there are enough cable subscribers in Washington to make that move worth it.
But that incremental revenue doesn’t apply to Big 12 since they lack a dedicated cable network. Their games are carried on ESPN and Fox’s normal channels, and those channels don’t have the same type of in-market and out of market fee structure that the SEC and Big Ten networks have.
Can all of these conferences start the logical process of changing their names?
I know there's a ton of legal paperwork involved, but you're literally going to have Pacific Ocean schools in an Atlantic Ocean conference and you'll have about 20 schools in the Big "Ten".
It's cognitive dissonance at its maximum.
I know there's a ton of legal paperwork involved, but you're literally going to have Pacific Ocean schools in an Atlantic Ocean conference and you'll have about 20 schools in the Big "Ten".
It's cognitive dissonance at its maximum.
Notre Dame, an ACC member in every sport but football, is pushing for the ACC to add Stanford and Cal, while SMU told the ACC the Mustangs would not require any league revenue for the first 5-7 years after joining, sources told Action Network.
“Notre Dame initiated us bringing on Stanford and Cal and continues to push, yet Notre Dame won’t join the ACC as a full-time member,” an ACC source said. “That doesn’t make sense to us.”
www.actionnetwork.com
“Notre Dame initiated us bringing on Stanford and Cal and continues to push, yet Notre Dame won’t join the ACC as a full-time member,” an ACC source said. “That doesn’t make sense to us.”
Notre Dame Pushing for ACC to Add Stanford, Cal; SMU Would Join Without Revenue
Check out Brett McMurphy's article on Notre Dame pushing for the ACC to add Stanford and Cal, while SMU would join without revenue.
www.actionnetwork.com
Last edited:
If the Big 10 doesn't change to Toys In The Attic they're missing out.
With that many schools maybe they should become "The Big Conference." Won't have to change the name again is they lose or add a couple.
They are brands now more than names. The Big Ten hasn’t been 10 teams since the early 90’s.
The SEC has at least remained fairly “southern.”
Really the SEC is the closest thing to an accurate title of the P4 schools.
The SEC has at least remained fairly “southern.”
Really the SEC is the closest thing to an accurate title of the P4 schools.
Could SMU finally get back to the Big Boys(ACC is basically a middle school football wise comparatively) after the death penalty? That would be cool for them as a school. They have been at the kiddie table for a long time now. They were a power for a decent time.ACC expansion: SMU emerges as potential target along with Stanford, Cal from Pac-12, per reports
The Mustangs were long seen as an expansion candidate for the Pac-12
Yeah they should just be the BIG. They could be the crossroads conference since they have IU and schools going coast to coast now.
ESPN trying to open new markets for the ACC network in California and Texas. Generate new revenue to close the payout gap between the SEC and ACC so nobody wants to leave the ACC. ND pushing for it because they know if the ACC folds no other conference is dumb enough to let them be a voting partial member and exclude football. Problem is, more teams added don't guarantee enough wealth and adds more "no" votes should they vote to leave the ACC in the future. I don't think the ACC voted to expand. The pressure is on ESPN, do something or see it's bargain basement gutted by Fox/B10. To be continued...
How does the ACC convince any potential new member schools to sign on to that ridiculous GoR agreement?
IMO that's a non-starter and puts a massive road block in front of any attempt to expand.
IMO that's a non-starter and puts a massive road block in front of any attempt to expand.
Just to state the obvious, Wash St & Oregon St are prime examples of this .... with every additional team its another split of the conference pie. In the case the what is now the Power 3, that's a big slice. So the P3 are in a great position to be very selective and very sure that every new addition increases the size of the overall pie by enough to offset their addition. Those 2 schools are a net loss for the Power 3. Gotta move down.
Someday, ND's own TV deal will be less than a full conference share and they'll try to join a conference. But that day isn't today. They can thank the ACC for keeping their scheduling viable or they might have faced decisions sooner.
I think a couple reasons for the ACC balking on expansion this week were:
1) concern by several schools about whether those additions might reduce per school shares
2) concern it might create a loophole or at least legal challenge to the Grant of Rights that is holding the conference together by a thread
3) starting to hear the backlash about travel in non-revenue sports and concerns about cutting other programs
OR, taking another sip ....
Maybe ND should step up and invite Stanford, Cal, SMU, Tulane, Duke, UNC, WF, GT, Syracuse, and the 3 military schools (cause they love to play them any way) into a conference. Save college football. LOL. We'll call it the Boy Scouts! Start their own network, The Red, White, and Blue Channel. Maybe a photo of Touchdown Jesus draped in an American Flag, wearing Baby Blue Air Jordans and a Christian Laettner jersey!
Pour me another.
Someday, ND's own TV deal will be less than a full conference share and they'll try to join a conference. But that day isn't today. They can thank the ACC for keeping their scheduling viable or they might have faced decisions sooner.
I think a couple reasons for the ACC balking on expansion this week were:
1) concern by several schools about whether those additions might reduce per school shares
2) concern it might create a loophole or at least legal challenge to the Grant of Rights that is holding the conference together by a thread
3) starting to hear the backlash about travel in non-revenue sports and concerns about cutting other programs
OR, taking another sip ....
Maybe ND should step up and invite Stanford, Cal, SMU, Tulane, Duke, UNC, WF, GT, Syracuse, and the 3 military schools (cause they love to play them any way) into a conference. Save college football. LOL. We'll call it the Boy Scouts! Start their own network, The Red, White, and Blue Channel. Maybe a photo of Touchdown Jesus draped in an American Flag, wearing Baby Blue Air Jordans and a Christian Laettner jersey!
Pour me another.
ND is trying like hell to keep the ACC alive because they have an agreement to play 5-6 ACC schools. If the ACC gets poached of it’s biggest brands/earners then it’s hard for them to stay independent as the Big 3 won’t schedule them because the big 3 will be playing 2 more conference games as those conferences get bigger.Notre Dame, an ACC member in every sport but football, is pushing for the ACC to add Stanford and Cal, while SMU told the ACC the Mustangs would not require any league revenue for the first 5-7 years after joining, sources told Action Network.
“Notre Dame initiated us bringing on Stanford and Cal and continues to push, yet Notre Dame won’t join the ACC as a full-time member,” an ACC source said. “That doesn’t make sense to us.”
Notre Dame Pushing for ACC to Add Stanford, Cal; SMU Would Join Without Revenue
Check out Brett McMurphy's article on Notre Dame pushing for the ACC to add Stanford and Cal, while SMU would join without revenue.
I think ND is driving that bus more. ESPN wants ND to join and both ESPN and ND are waiting to see who moves first. If the ACC in fact dissolves or its biggest brands leave ND is screwed. ESPN is in a tight spot too. Will be interesting in the next week to see if any teams announce their intentions. The 15th is the deadline.
ACC needs to tell Notre Dame to get all in or get all out.
The ACC is gambling that if ND is ever forced to join a conference in football, they will join the ACC since they are already part of it in other sports.
Desperation. Where else are they gonna go?
On top of signing the GOR they were willing to take partial revenue payouts for several yrs. I think SMU said zero revenue for first 4-5 years.
That's insane and a terrible decision by SMU.
Why wouldn't SMU be more desirable to the Big 12? Even with Baylor and Texas Tech, the Big 12 doesn't have nearly enough presence in Texas.
ACC needs ND more than ND needs the ACC. At least in the short term. After that GoR agreement is either broken or runs out, ND would be in a much better position to dictate terms.
They won't do that because they're too frightened of what would happen if ND chose the "all out" option.
Even though ND's not an official football member, the ND connection ...and the higher TV ratings their ND games get ...is largely what's keeping the ACC at least somewhat relevant in relation to the the SEC/Big Ten in football TV ratings game. They ain't doing anything that might jeopardize losing that calling card.
That just amazes me that teams from California would fly all the way across the country to compete in a conference, I just dont think big enough what would the costs be to move a team that far?ACC expansion: SMU emerges as potential target along with Stanford, Cal from Pac-12, per reports
The Mustangs were long seen as an expansion candidate for the Pac-12
Yep. And they are wayyyyy out west/NW which doesn’t make sense for the ACC to pick up and force their charter members to make that trip or to make those 2 teams be on the road every week playing in the eastern time zone when they have class/practice in the pacific time zone the following day. Those teams would essentially have to live in hotels for the length of basketball season. At least football is only on Saturday
And that includes non-revenue sports teams. That has to cost a ton of money.
And if you are trying to recruit other teams to your conference, wouldn’t that be a deterrent?
For example, if you are UNC and the Big 10 and SEC both offer you a similar deal, but in the SEC, the farthest you travel is Texas/Oklahoma while in the Big 10 you have to go to LA, Washington, and Oregon, isn’t that cutting into your revenue?
In football and basketball, it’s not a big deal, but when you have to send your rifle team, volleyball team, swim team, lacrosse team, etc. that far, that’s more money spent.
Does increasing your footprint bring enough more revenue to justify it?
Does this give the SEC an advantage over the Big 10, in that aspect?
You can spread yourself too thin.
I think the revenue far outweighs the expenses or they wouldn’t be doing it. Take the ACC and SEC. In 20-21, the ACC payout per school was $36.1 million. The SEC payout per school was $54.6 million. Even if your expenses are $2 million more, that’s a $16.5 million increase to your budget.
But as you add more teams, you stretch it more. It has to be a factor.
It has to cost a little more to travel around the Big 10 now than it does the SEC. I’m sure that affects the bottom line, just like having more teams is a factor.
Your $2 million figure might be a bit low depending on the specific situation. I believe Washington is anticipating travel costs to increase by $10 million due to joining the Big Ten, but that’s also probably close to the worst case scenario. An ACC school joining the SEC would probably see a much smaller travel budget increase than what Washington is facing.
Overall though your point is valid in that, whatever the travel costs end up being, the increased revenue makes it worth it. At least from a purely financial perspective.
Now whether this is better for the student athletes (i.e., the potential negative impact that added travel may have on their educational experience and quality of life) is another matter.
No way conferences are adding more teams to make less money. That’s just not happening. The SEC teams will not agree to add more teajs if their share is going down.
I can just imagine the scheduling nightmare in sports like basketball that play twice a week.
Last edited:
I’m quite sure the Big 10 had very smart people do the math to ensure that the increased revenue share from adding the West coast teams will exceed the increased travel expenses.
Otherwise, those four schools never would’ve gotten the invitation.
They(Oregon and Washington)will get a full share in 7years when the new deal is negotiated. Right now it’s a partial/reduced share. It’s a win for both as the B1G will still get that open slot. B1G football will be generating money from
11:00am-1:00am. No other conference can say that. The B1G locked up the top 3 major markets. RU/New York tv market generates the most. It’s ridiculous how much. When Oregon and Washington agreed to take less it was a no brainer.
My point is this: if the SEC has less travel cost than the Big 10, then the SEC might be more attractive to a team than the Big 10.
That and the fact that you don’t have to send every student athlete across the country, costing them time out of class, etc.
If everything else is relatively even, that could be a deciding factor.
