Content is key. Those interesting matchups. That are strange in a way but very intriguing. Winner winner chicken dinner.
Use only this thread to pitch your insane expansion ideas
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Please SMF don’t do that. I might be your only fan left. I’ll be damned if I have to pay to post my nonsense. 🤠
The way to think about it isn't by how many teams are in your conference, but how many P5 football games (and basketball games, etc.) you get to show under your rights deal. Right now the ACC gets 14*8/2 = 56 conference games plus whatever ND is obligated. If you add two teams to the conference, you are only getting 16*8/2 = 64 games. That's only 8 more games of content, but now you are dividing the resulting revenue into smaller slices. If you mandate all 14 schools play one home and one road game against the Pac-12, that's already 14 games more content. If your partner conference is also covered by ESPN, they'd be getting +14 games from each.
Sure, every team already plays some number of P5 games, so it isn't straight benefit, and you could be replacing games against the SEC or B12 with Pac-12 in some cases. But you'd reinforce with your schools that this needs to be, on average, an upgrade to your SOS and probably eliminate FCS games.
The easy way to look at it is how many games do P5 teams play against non-P5 teams. ESPN is probably willing to pay to drive that number to zero. It isn't about Pitt vs Washington State being exciting, it is about conferences structuring a complete package where ESPN can assign a market value. Right now, as we know, the OOC schedules for Pitt or Syracuse or NC State aren't particularly valuable.
Killing off the ACC is what the sec gets with a surgical strike. In business, you eliminate the competition.
Alright here is my out of the box crazy idea since we are at it. Its Wednesday afternoon and working from home is boring as hell at this point of the day.
The ACC and SEC combine and add WVU and ND bringing it to 32 teams. Revenue splits between tier 1 and tier 2 teams. Nothing completely crazy, but enough that the big dogs can say they run the join. Four Divisions playing 10 conference games a year in some fashion. ND gets to keep their NBC deal which would probably earn them a crap ton more money anyway. ESPN wins in this fashion because no matter what happens, they have on minimum with byes 12 games a week they can sell sell sell across their platform of networks. They will then be able to hold comcast's feet to the fire even more and it will get whatever they decide to call the New rebranded ACC Network. I would then expect NBC and ESPN work something out that they can play two games a Saturday for basketball to compete with Fox.
For basketball and other non-revenue sports, divisions are based upon regions so everyone can save money on travel and it is a win win for everyone.
The Big Ten who is Fox's greatest asset looks around and says we need content too for Fox FS1 and FS2 along with Big Ten Network.. They say lets partner with the Pac-12 lets keep everything how they are and lets go to fox with a crazy number that is comparable to that of the ACC/SEC deal. Fox, who has nothing else going for them with the demise of the B12 has zero complaints. Each Conference champion plays in the rose bowl or some garbage that Fox can bid on and they win.
The Big 12 says oh crap and ends up partnering with the AAC which actually would still be a pretty good football conference and would still be able to get an autobid into the playoffs or something whatever that looks like anymore.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now here is what is actually going to happen is pretty simple. The ACC is going to grab the remaining Big 12 teams and bring the conference to 22 teams with divisions based upon region and they are going to play 10 conference games a year. The reason they do this is because ESPN gets what they want no matter what. This makes Fox Sports a one trick pony, this boosts their ESPN+ B12 deal, and it makes ACC Network more national. Plus it makes ACC Basketball even better.
The ACC and SEC combine and add WVU and ND bringing it to 32 teams. Revenue splits between tier 1 and tier 2 teams. Nothing completely crazy, but enough that the big dogs can say they run the join. Four Divisions playing 10 conference games a year in some fashion. ND gets to keep their NBC deal which would probably earn them a crap ton more money anyway. ESPN wins in this fashion because no matter what happens, they have on minimum with byes 12 games a week they can sell sell sell across their platform of networks. They will then be able to hold comcast's feet to the fire even more and it will get whatever they decide to call the New rebranded ACC Network. I would then expect NBC and ESPN work something out that they can play two games a Saturday for basketball to compete with Fox.
For basketball and other non-revenue sports, divisions are based upon regions so everyone can save money on travel and it is a win win for everyone.
The Big Ten who is Fox's greatest asset looks around and says we need content too for Fox FS1 and FS2 along with Big Ten Network.. They say lets partner with the Pac-12 lets keep everything how they are and lets go to fox with a crazy number that is comparable to that of the ACC/SEC deal. Fox, who has nothing else going for them with the demise of the B12 has zero complaints. Each Conference champion plays in the rose bowl or some garbage that Fox can bid on and they win.
The Big 12 says oh crap and ends up partnering with the AAC which actually would still be a pretty good football conference and would still be able to get an autobid into the playoffs or something whatever that looks like anymore.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now here is what is actually going to happen is pretty simple. The ACC is going to grab the remaining Big 12 teams and bring the conference to 22 teams with divisions based upon region and they are going to play 10 conference games a year. The reason they do this is because ESPN gets what they want no matter what. This makes Fox Sports a one trick pony, this boosts their ESPN+ B12 deal, and it makes ACC Network more national. Plus it makes ACC Basketball even better.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Do you really think the ACC is a threat to the SEC? Wouldn't the B1G be a better target if competition was what you wanted to eliminate?
I think being late to table on the network didn’t being that cords were and are being cut. The fact that they were able to get it done to me is remarkable. Playing football last fall when the Big 10 and the PAC were going to sit it out I think showed leadership.i think of all the conferences as far as managing they are second to the SEC. The Big 10 falls upward by mistake.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I'd argue that the B1G whiffed by adding Rutgers and MD when there were bigger prizes. A lot of B1G fans absolutely think so because they recognize the old television model won't be relevant much longer.
The ACC got the deal that made sense based on what it offers. It's still a very valuable basketball conference despite recent performance and overall, the football isn't an awful product. Yeah, it's a smaller revenue stream but it's not so small that it isn't worth something. Compared to what the Big12 was apparently going to be worth on their next deal and what the Pac12 looks to be worth for its next deal, the ACC ended up doing pretty well.
I agree on Rutgers and UMD both programs are dead men walking. I go one step further and say Nebraska is that great of an addition. Nebraska hasn’t been nor do I think they are relevant anytime soon.
The SEC/ACC merger just makes too much sense.
The conferences are going to control college football going forward. The SEC wields the most power. They're the reason the playoff will expand from 4 to 12. If they wield the money, power, and influence the direction of the sport going forward, why wouldn't ACC member schools want to be a part of it?
The conferences are going to control college football going forward. The SEC wields the most power. They're the reason the playoff will expand from 4 to 12. If they wield the money, power, and influence the direction of the sport going forward, why wouldn't ACC member schools want to be a part of it?
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Nebraska still has a big base of donors and the program is healthy financially. Just hampered by the same ineptness that plagued Pitt. And I do mean, the same. It's amazing how many programs are going to be sitting in prime conferences that once made up the Southwest Conference and the Big 8. Six SEC will be schools will originally be from those two conferences.
When the new pay per game world arrives, fans will be paying a lot more than $10 a month to watch their team's game. $10 per game would be more likely, but it will probably be even more than that.
No chance. That only works for niche sports which have huge cult followings but absolutely 0 casual fans. WWE, Boxing, UFC. Mainstream sports have too many casual fans who will watch it on ESPN but would never in a million years pay $10 to watch it. Would you pay $10 to watch Clemson vs Florida State? Nope.
You don't understand the way this is going to work. At all.
If you charge $10 per month to watch the games the amount of money that the schools make is going to go down. Way, way down. They aren't going to price games to capture the casual fan, because they won't make nearly enough money. They are going to price games to gouge the diehards. That's the only way that it's going to work, dollar-wise.
Hell, people are paying ESPN more than $10 a month right now. How on earth do you figure this is going to be cheaper for the people buying it when the number of people paying will get cut in what, a half? A third? A quarter? Less?
Are you saying $10/month for like ACCN without having a cable/streaming service because yes, something like that will happen. I thought you meant $10/game
Lol, I don’t think any apprehension on the merger would be on acc’ side.
Also, can you call it a merger if one side brings everything to the table and the other side has zero value to add?
Not really an expansion idea, but just some food for thought:
How is the University at Buffalo not in a Power 5 conference, or at the very least in the AAC? I know the answer (money, commitment to athletics), but they have all the makings of a major player if they took it serious; reputable school with AAU membership, a large alumni base with 30,000 enrolled students, and is situated in the Buffalo market and near the GTA. They even had plans to seriously upgrade their football stadium several years ago.
I like to see football programs succeed in the northeast, and part of me feels like the Bulls are somewhere between “untapped potential” and “missed opportunity.” Who knows, maybe Buffalo and another northeast university or two takes football seriously and the trajectory of the Big East gets altered.
How is the University at Buffalo not in a Power 5 conference, or at the very least in the AAC? I know the answer (money, commitment to athletics), but they have all the makings of a major player if they took it serious; reputable school with AAU membership, a large alumni base with 30,000 enrolled students, and is situated in the Buffalo market and near the GTA. They even had plans to seriously upgrade their football stadium several years ago.
I like to see football programs succeed in the northeast, and part of me feels like the Bulls are somewhere between “untapped potential” and “missed opportunity.” Who knows, maybe Buffalo and another northeast university or two takes football seriously and the trajectory of the Big East gets altered.
Last edited:
Good call. They have everything that you mentioned going for them, but their biggest downfall is the northeast’s fans penchant for pro teams.
UCONN, Rutgers, BC, Temple, Delaware all could or should be bigger players in college football (along with Buffalo), but their fan base is pro minded.
Pitt has a lot of the same challenges, but are able to overcome them to a large degree because Pitt made it’s name in college football before pro football got established.
But, back to your point, with the right support and coaching stability, Buffalo could become attractive to a bigger conference.
All good points. UMass is another one that could fall into that category.
What I always wondered about the northeast is that why has college football consistently struggled while college basketball succeeded? I have a few ideas but no concrete answers.
My thoughts are that there are sooooo many small colleges sprinkled throughout the northeast that there isn’t the alumni base compared to total population for any one school to dominate.
Other than Pitt and Syracuse, what schools in the NE had an abundant amount of success before the NFL hype machine started in the late 60s early 70s? Fordham?
The southeastern states all (most) had a big state school or two that had loyal fans long before the NFL even tried to enter their markets.
I agree with your first statement, although I think it's human nature to want to cling to power.
I think a SEC/ACC merger (lol. or call it whatever) would give the new entity a huge leg up in becoming the new governing body of the sport. That's something that is badly needed, imo. and something that might be enticing to the SEC.
The ACC should do whatever Clemson says they should do, and every Pitt fan over the age 40 should reminisce about what it was like to be important in football (maybe 50 and older). Outside of that, WVU to the ACC would take a single a phone call. WVU would jump in a heartbeat.
I would happily pay $10 per game to watch Pitt in my man cave on away games
OK, fine, here's my trickle down expansion predictions
Pac 12 South
OKSt
TCU
TT
Houston
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Houston
Pac 12 North (old Pac 8)
4 Cali, 2 Wash, 2 Ore
Big 12 East
WVU
Iowa State
Cincy
Memphis
UCF
USF
Big 12 West
Baylor
Kansas
Kansas State
UNLV
Colorado State
SMU
American Athletic would be down to:
Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, East Carolina, and Wichita State (non-football)
MWC adds Tulsa and Texas-San Antonio to get back to 12 plus Wichita State for non-football.
American Athletic adds the 13 leftovers from CUSA and CUSA folds.
Unfortunately, UMass and Buffalo still locked out but really they should just start their own football-only league:
UConn
UMass
Army
Navy
Temple
Liberty
NM State
Need 1 more to have a league
Temple would be welcomed back into the A10 for everything else.
Last edited:
Why? Clemson is going to fall back to earth once Dabo either pulls a Urban Meyer when the NCAA starts sniffing around or an NFL owner makes him too good of an offer to pass up.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
It's worth watching what Clemson does. If WVU is suddenly very high on Clemson's list (Jim Clements, their president, is a WVU guy), then Clemson is interested in staying put. Clements is also the conference liaison to ESPN.
ESPN is the one pulling the strings, everyone needs to stop with the Clemson is going to the SEC talk. ESPN aka Disney is on the path to lock up the sole rights to the SEC, ACC and AAC, they need the ACC remain a strong conference since they control the rights, they're not going to let the ACC lose its top team. WVU is going to end up in the AAC if ESPN has its way since the addition of the remaining Big 12 teams makes the AAC a semi decent property to control.
Re-evaluating, if the American was down to only 3 teams (Temple, Tulsa, ECU), who would the best CUSA/Sun Belt teams be to go after. I forgot that Coastal Carolina would be a lock.
I could see the American Athletic becoming more of an East Coast league:
Temple
Marshall
ECU
Charlotte
App St
ODU
Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
FAU
FIU
UMass
Buffalo?
So then you are left with basically a CUSA/Sun Belt merger of Central Time Zone southern teams
East
WKU
MTSU
UAB
Troy
South Alabama
Georgia Southern
Southern Miss
LT
West
ULL
ULM
Tulane
Ark St
Rice
UNT
UTEP
Texas State
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I know UB. It’s complicated. But all this expansion and realignment is just warm up. The super league of 30 football schools will be here shortly. And the NCAA will have zero say.
I am saying that when the cable television model completely falls apart if you think that you are only going to be paying $10 a month to watch Pitt sports you are nuts. Completely, utterly nuts.
If you bring in $10 a month from all the people who would pay that for the ACC network if it were a stand alone service the amount of money that the ACC network brings in would be drastically smaller than what it is today. To say nothing of comparing it to how much it will bring in after Comcast is forced aboard.
It's like as if you don't know that you are already paying more than $10 a month to watch Pitt sports. If you take into account the ESPN channels, ABC, the ACC network and AT&T Pittsburgh you are already paying close to $20 a month (and maybe more). You somehow think that even though they are going to be bringing in money from a lot fewer people that somehow it's still going to cost less per person, and somehow that's going to bring in as much or more money. You are simply wrong. It's simple math, and yet somehow beyond your comprehension.
The cable TV model and the YTTV/Fubo model is basically the same exact thing. That model will be around a few more decades at least.
That may be what the schools want, but it will never be successful. People aren't going to pay $10 per game. People here don't even want to pay $10 to sit in the stands.
I think the closest comparable model for an ACC-only streaming subscription would be MLB.tv which was originally priced at $130 for the 2021 season.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Anyone See Reggie Bush is Trying to Bankrupt Many Athletic Departments
- Latest: MIXED_PANTHER#1
-
