ACC replacement list: UConn, USF, Memphis, Tulane, Washington State, Oregon State

[NE Football]

With cord cutting and the move to streaming, I would think the ACCN will not exist in 10 years as the content is rolled into whatever the ESPN streaming service is down the road. ACCN subscriber counts have already peaked (same for ESPN) although they will get some revenue uptick in the short term as they add more in conference geographies.

ESPN is still and will continue to be the leader in sports tv. The ACCN is a big cash cow for ESPN. The revenues are going up significantly with the addition of the California and Texas markets. ESPN already streams a huge amount of ACC content. The cord cutters are not going to want to buy several different streaming services.

 

[NE Football]

ESPN could always transfer the ACC Network into the Big 12 Network. Once the big brands leave the ACC, there is no need for an ACC Network. At least the Big 12 with have brands that have fans who care about football.

The ACC owns 50% of the ACCN. ESPN cannot transfer the network to another conference. This is why Big 12 teams will be added to the ACC.

 

[UCONNRPh]

UNC and NC State draw 50k to their stadiums every game and have plenty of alumni eyeballs supporting football. Lumping them in with Duke & Wake is incorrect. Their following is similar to or stronger than Baylor, TT, TCU or Houston.

True, very True.

 

[Rufus]

The ACC owns 50% of the ACCN. ESPN cannot transfer the network to another conference. This is why Big 12 teams will be added to the ACC.

New Cable Network for A.C.C. Heightens Arms Race in College Sports (Published 2019)

The ACC Network is owned by ESPN with revenues and costs split with the Atlantic Coast Conference. Its launch comes against a backdrop of changing viewership and big money to air college sports.

www.nytimes.com

The ACC Network is 100% owned by ESPN. They split the costs and revenue equally with the ACC, but it’s 100% owned by ESPN. Easy to switch out the ACC with the Big 12.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

All Big 12 teams have more fans than Wake Forest, Cal, SMU, Boston College, etc. And that's what the ACC is going to look like in the very near future.

Rufus, legitimate question here:

How many schools do you believe will leave the ACC and where will each go?

 

[Rufus]

Rufus, legitimate question here:

How many schools do you believe will leave the ACC and where will each go?

Hard to say. I’ll break it down like this:

Definitely leaving: Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Virginia

Could leave based on political maneuvering/state involvement: North Carolina State and Virginia Tech

If that is enough to collapse the value of the ACC below the value of the Big 12 (and I think it will), schools like Georgia Tech, Duke, Pittsburgh and Louisville may move over to the Big 12.

I see Florida State and Miami in the B1G.

I see North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson (and maybe one or both of Virginia Tech and North Carolina State for reasons I just mentioned) in the SEC.

If the SEC snubs Virginia Tech and/or North Carolina State, I think the Big 12 will desire them.

The ACC then backfills with UConn, Washington State, Oregon State, and the best brands left in the American, such as USF, Memphis, Tulane, etc.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Hard to say. I’ll break it down like this:

Definitely leaving: Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Miami, Virginia

Could leave based on political maneuvering/state involvement: North Carolina State and Virginia Tech

If that is enough to collapse the value of the ACC below the value of the Big 12 (and I think it will), schools like Georgia Tech, Duke, Pittsburgh and Louisville may move over to the Big 12.

I see Florida State and Miami in the B1G.

I see North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson (and maybe one or both of Virginia Tech and North Carolina State for reasons I just mentioned) in the SEC.

If the SEC snubs Virginia Tech and/or North Carolina State, I think the Big 12 will desire them.

The ACC then backfills with UConn, Washington State, Oregon State, and the best brands left in the American, such as USF, Memphis, Tulane, etc.

UConn is pursuing its 6th National Championship since 1999. You know, actual college sports. Most of us are much more concerned with what is happening on the court than rooting for our conference, but I guess if you are a Rutgers fan, rooting for the conference is all you got.

 

[Rufus]

UConn is pursuing its 6th National Championship since 1999. You know, actual college sports. Most of us are much more concerned with what is happening on the court than rooting for our conference, but I guess if you are a Rutgers fan, rooting for the conference is all you got.

Why do you keep saying I’m a Rutgers fan? I’ve never even been to their campus.

 

[hank970]

Why do you keep saying I’m a Rutgers fan? I’ve never even been to their campus.

It's what folks do here when you dare to post something with which they disagree. Any discordant note in UConn's echo chamber raises suspicions of an ulterior motive. I've been accused of being a fan of various schools.

 

[John]

Why do you keep saying I’m a Rutgers fan? I’ve never even been to their campus.

it's his shtick.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

That’s a different story. That’s strong-arming to bring up a school to a conference that UVA was a part if (even had a higher level of influence). The Virginia legislature would have no pull with the SEC. As said above, Washington-WSU and Oregon-OSU were supposedly tied to the hip. UCLA and Cal were tied to the hip and nothing happened either way.

If UNC has a chance to better themselves by joining the SEC or Big10, the state legislature won’t stand in the way. They’ll make a huge scene to appease the NCST fans and alumni, but they will let the Tar Heels go. UNC is playing the game properly by not filing a lawsuit and keeping its mouth shut. When the time comes, my guess is they will be able to leave. Maybe the SEC wants UNC bad enough to pull up NCST as well, but I doubt it.

Yes, and the timing of it was quite unique. Roughly ten days before the news brole of the ACC preparing to vote to officially add Miami, BC & Syracuse, a national magazine (I believe Time but it could have been Newsweek) had a cover article (with VT used for the picture of all things) illustrating the skyrocking costs of college education in the US (whi has only continued over the subsequent two decades). A large enough portion of the state of Virginia's citizenry griped about how this would hurt Va Tech financially so the state government stepped in and threatened UVA if UVA didn't vote no to any expansion tht did not include Va Tech.

As the then ACC need eight yes votes and both Duke & UNC we no's, the only alignment that passed initially was adding Miami and Va Tech. BC begged and pleaded for a while and an agreement was reached that a later vote would occur to add BC.

 

[Kolumbo]

I can't get past a piece of this. A long-term contract has to continue to be beneficial to both parties. If it is not, then there has to be a way to get out of it. If espn can pay Mississippi State and Vandy so much more for football than it is paying FSU and Clemson, then espn is not doing the best it can for its constituents and it is thereby harming FSU and Clemson. Pay FSU more, it will be more competitive, ratings go up. They could argue espn is actually purposefully harming FSU.

It would be cool to see UNC, NC State, UVA, Va Tech, Georgia Tech stay together and keep some form of the ACC intact. They're likely not winning any football championship any time soon, the basketball rivalries are worth saving, and they still make pretty good bank. It would still dominate the east coast and it would be a great home for UConn and perhaps an alliance with the Big East. Besides, how much bigger can the other conferences afford to get?

Wishful thinking, I know.

 

[huskymedic]

Another old friend:

 

[Waquoit]

Another old friend:

Did you know they call him Berry because of his nose?

 

[CL82]

A long-term contract has to continue to be beneficial to both parties. If it is not, then there has to be a way to get out of it.

Doesn't that position inherently undercut the certainty of a long-term agreement? If either party can exit the relationship at any time for any reason, why bother having a contract?

 

[businesslawyer]

it's his shtick.

If only it were his only one.

 

[businesslawyer]

I can't get past a piece of this. A long-term contract has to continue to be beneficial to both parties. If it is not, then there has to be a way to get out of it. If espn can pay Mississippi State and Vandy so much more for football than it is paying FSU and Clemson, then espn is not doing the best it can for its constituents and it is thereby harming FSU and Clemson. Pay FSU more, it will be more competitive, ratings go up. They could argue espn is actually purposefully harming FSU.

No. That's just not how contracts work.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I can't get past a piece of this. A long-term contract has to continue to be beneficial to both parties. If it is not, then there has to be a way to get out of it. If espn can pay Mississippi State and Vandy so much more for football than it is paying FSU and Clemson, then espn is not doing the best it can for its constituents and it is thereby harming FSU and Clemson. Pay FSU more, it will be more competitive, ratings go up. They could argue espn is actually purposefully harming FSU.

It would be cool to see UNC, NC State, UVA, Va Tech, Georgia Tech stay together and keep some form of the ACC intact. They're likely not winning any football championship any time soon, the basketball rivalries are worth saving, and they still make pretty good bank. It would still dominate the east coast and it would be a great home for UConn and perhaps an alliance with the Big East. Besides, how much bigger can the other conferences afford to get?

Wishful thinking, I know.

Look at the situation the Islanders were stuck in for decades with their lease on the Nassau Coliseum (a lease is a long term contract). Just because terms that one party viewed as favorable at the time they signed a lease no longer are favorable, you don't have the ability to just avoid the agreement (unless of course such a provision was written into the agreement).

Similar to the situation the Islanders were in, the possibility of a negotiated buyout always existed. For the Islanders, the cost was prohibitive until roughly ten years ago. For members of the ACC, it may also be a number of years before the cost of buying out of the GOR is no longer prohibitive.

 

[Kolumbo]

Doesn't that position inherently undercut the certainty of a long-term agreement? If either party can exit the relationship at any time for any reason, why bother having a contract?

A correctly executed contract includes details which the parties need to adhere to. Otherwise sure, anyone can enter into a contract and then just mail it in. Both parties need to meet their obligations.

On the flip side, for arguments sake, what if the athletic departments all decided to deemphasize football. They fund it bare bones and continue to collect the big checks from espn. I don't think that would float.

 

[CL82]

A correctly executed contract includes details which the parties need to adhere to. Otherwise sure, anyone can enter into a contract and then just mail it in. Both parties need to meet their obligations.

On the flip side, for arguments sake, what if the athletic departments all decided to deemphasize football. They fund it bare bones and continue to collect the big checks from espn. I don't think that would float.

You do realize that asking whether both parties met their obligations under the contract is a different thing than just saying hey any any party should be able to exit contract when they no longer feel it in their best interest without regard to the impact on the other party.

I'm not at all sure about the point you're trying to make in the second paragraph, so I can't comment on it.

 

[Kolumbo]

You do realize that asking whether both parties met their obligations under the contract is a different thing than just saying hey any any party should be able to exit contract when they no longer feel it in their best interest without regard to the impact on the other party.

I'm not at all sure about the point you're trying to make in the second paragraph, so I can't comment on it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say or what you are replying to in your first paragraph so let's call it even.

 

[CL82]

I have no idea what you are trying to say or what you are replying to in your first paragraph so let's call it even.

Works for me.

 

[LoyalFanCT]

Our friends on another site are doing a poll on which school the ACC may add, if any. UConn is an option.

Which school the ACC will add, if any?

ACCbbs: The #1 Board for Atlantic Coast Conference sports on the internet.

csnbbs.com

 

[UConn Dan]

Not sure if this was posted this article references the below tweet

https://footballscoop.com/news/every-fbs-school-ranked-by-how-attractive-theyd-be-in-conference-realignment

 

[Rufus]

Not sure if this was posted this article references the below tweet

https://footballscoop.com/news/every-fbs-school-ranked-by-how-attractive-theyd-be-in-conference-realignment

So UConn is less valuable than every school in the B1G, SEC, Big 12 and ACC, as well as Washington State, Oregon State, Army, Navy and South Florida?