This thread is turning into every other "I hate the basketball schools" thread that this board has ever had. I will respectfully disagree on your characterization of Depaul at the least, and likely Providence too. Chicago is a huge market that actually follows Depaul if Depaul is even remotely competitive, and Depaul's commitment to basketball should not be questioned since they took Clemson's coach to the tune of about $1.6 million per year. Providence is a decent sized market with no competition and also does well if they are remotely competitive. I agree that Seton Hall is almost completely redundant. That said, the football schools could walk away any time they wanted, and they didn't. Unless you know something they don't, I will assume they have hired consultants to measure the league's value with and without the hoops schools, and they came back as a net positive. And the cost of the hoops schools was going to go up with any new TV deal based on the ESPN offer from May 2011, and the football schools still kept them.
The right move in September 2011 was not for everyone to grab a lifeboat, but to go to NBC with a Big East/ACC merger proposal for the whole league, splitting off from the hoops schools. Instead, the ACC got a trivial per team increase on their TV deal and the Big East got hammered. Both leagues suffered.
I’m going to answer these two questions together, b/c they both have a similar answer.
I agree & understand that DePaul is a popular in Chicago when they’re good. However, for any school, their value TO THE CONFERENCE is three-fold: TV revenue, post-season revenue, and cross-marketing (which is indirect TV revenue).
TV draw, as with all teams, ebbs & flows w/ the quality & performance of the teams. This is where DePaul, Providence, and Seton Hall seriously lag. DePaul has had 2 NCAA tourney appearances in the last TWENTY YEARS! They have had ZERO top 25 finishes. Providence has had 4 NCAA tourney appearances & 1 ranked team in the last 20 years, with only 1 appearance in the last decade. And, Seton Hall has had 5 NCAA tourney appearances, and 1 ranked team in the last 20 years, with that ranked team coming 20 years ago. So, their post season revenue has been abysmal. And, b/c they have sucked for almost the entirety of the past 2 decades, their TV #s have been abysmal as well. At present, their only value is through cross-marketing, which is simply opening up teams to TV markets they wouldn’t otherwise have. Cross marketing is why a team like GA Tech is so valuable, b/c despite the fact that their TV numbers are far less than UGA, teams like FSU & Clemson draw really, really well in Atlanta b/c of the market access through GA Tech being in the conference.
All that said, if you were to breakdown the revenue streams generated per team for the conference, these 3 teams would most likely be dead last. And that is why I referred to them as dead weight.
As for the ACC & BE merging, the answer lies in the answer above. From a financial standpoint, it would actually cause the per team payout to drop, not increase. First, although USF has put together a good football program, and is even growing their basketball now, they don’t draw well in their home market (though I do believe that will change over the next decade if they continue to play well). Further, the ACC already has 2 of the 3 most popular Florida teams locked up in FSU & Miami. USF has no TV value for the ACC, and no cross-marketing value. Their only revenue value would be post-season play. But, as with all teams, you have to ask yourself how a team like USF would fare in the ACC. If they’re going to be middle of the road (7-8 wins a year), then all they’re really doing is taking the place of one of the other middle of the road ACC teams that would get pushed down by USF’s arrival. So, their revenue value is minimal.
Cincy is very similar. They’ve been a very successful in both football, and to a lesser extent, basketball. And, I could see them continuing to perform well in the ACC. Their problem is they have very weak TV #s, and amongst the worst fan support in the BE. They’re fans don’t come to the games, and they don’t donate $$$ to the program. B/c of Cincy’s weak TV #s, there’s minimal cross-marketing of teams. It’s a market that nobody from the BE draws well in. And, there’s no reason to think that wouldn’t continue in the ACC. So, you’d be taking Cincy based on their post season payouts, and hoping that never changes. That’s a big risk. Granted, there’s the opportunity to help grow their grand by being in a better conference, but most conferences don’t like taking those kinds of risks.
Rutgers has similar issues, but they have one asset that would/could make them attractive………they’re in a strong TV market, though their own TV #s haven’t been great. Revenue wise, Rutgers has brought in minimal post-season revenue. They draw well when they’re rarely good….VERY well. But, the issue is, they rarely have a quality team in any sport. They’re more of a wildcard for a conference, b/c they could be a huge asset if they get their programs to perform well, but otherwise, they’re middling, with only the appeal of cross-marketing.
More than anything though, the ACC is an academically focused league. They would never entertain the idea of adding teams like Cincy, USF, etc unless it was a life or death (of the conference) type scenario.
