Let's assume the ACC gets torn to shreds

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm pretty sure Nelson is understating the actual ACC deal and I was just throwing out $20M a year.

There's a reason all those schools have been relegated in C-USA, MAC, Mtn. West, etc. all these years.

People just don't care about them.

If we've learned 1 thing about Conference Realignment it goes football History/Tradition, and then recent BCS Bowl wins that matter.

Markets, potential, potential markets don't mean . If you don't register nationally with the casual college football fan it just doesn't matter.

The current ACC deal is for $155MM per year, or $13MM per team per year. Try "the google". ESPN recently announced that the contract was adjusted to $17MM per school per year, but I would be shocked if that deal was signed given the ACC's problems.

I think every one of your conclusions is almost 100% wrong. Texas A&M and Missouri are not in the SEC for football history and tradition. John Calipari will have more Final Fours vacated in the next 3 years than Texas A&M and Missouri have in combined BCS and Final Four appearances in their history.

With the exception of a few years under McPherson and early in Pasqualoni's tenure, Syracuse has been a pillar in mediocrity for 5 decades, occasionally lapsing into bad football during that time. Colorado has sucked since McCartney stopped recruiting gang members from Watts. Utah had a couple of recent BCS appearances and a Final Four, but more importantly, it was located in one of the fastest growing states in the country.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The current ACC deal is for $155MM per year, or $13MM per team per year. Try "the google". ESPN recently announced that the contract was adjusted to $17MM per school per year, but I would be shocked if that deal was signed given the ACC's problems.

That is the definition of misconstruing information.

You used the old contact - which is wrong in valuing things going forward.
Deny every report on the new contract's value.
Speculate that every report about the new contract is wrong and assume the deal will revert back to the old one's value.

I think every one of your conclusions is almost 100% wrong. Texas A&M and Missouri are not in the SEC for football history and tradition. John Calipari will have more Final Fours vacated in the next 3 years than Texas A&M and Missouri have in combined BCS and Final Four appearances in their history.

With the exception of a few years under McPherson and early in Pasqualoni's tenure, Syracuse has been a pillar in mediocrity for 5 decades, occasionally lapsing into bad football during that time. Colorado has sucked since McCartney stopped recruiting gang members from Watts. Utah had a couple of recent BCS appearances and a Final Four, but more importantly, it was located in one of the fastest growing states in the country.

Another classic Nelson attempt here and shaping your facts to fit your argument. Naming the probably two biggest 'market moves' and excluding every single other one. I laugh that you don't find Texas A&M to have a strong football tradition either. You're making my point for me. It's all about perception in realignment. People either think you're good, because you've won BCS Bowls recently or because people (ESPN) says you're good based off your tradition.

I'll sit back and and eagerly await to see how you say the Omaha media market is why the Big10 took Nebraska.

FYI

The teams that have moved have been:

Utah: BCS Bowl win
Colorado: National Title
TCU: BCS Bowl win
Texas A&M: National Title
Mizzou: No BCS win or National Title - but traditionally strong football.
Syracuse: National Title
Pitt: National Title
WVU: BCS Win
Nebraska: National Title

 

[zls44]

Anyone having MD leaving for anywhere other than the SEC or Big 10 is silly. They'd owe the ACC $20 million, and they haven't got $20.

 

[upstater]

All that may be left of the ACC in the end is BCU, Duke, Wake and Syracuse.

Virginia, Maryland, UNC and... ND to the Big10.
NC St and VT to the SEC.
Clemson, Miami, G Tech, FSU, Pitt and BYU to the B12.

BE would have to reconsider what the hell to do in such a scenario. Stay with the coast to coast league. Split from the basketball schools? Kick out the new additions and invite the 3 ACC remainders?

 

[observer]

The ACC contract has look-ins every five years. I'm not even sure that conference could even be called the ACC, though...your scenario almost decimates it.

I'd also point out that the Big East doesn't have a media contract and all the speculation here presupposes that schools that networks had essentially attributed little value to are suddenly hot commodities.

Nobody killed themselves to throw money at Houston, SMU, UCF in the past - hard to imagine that they're ready to do so now.

Absolutely right; schools that were not a big media draw before will not suddenly become a viewership magnet because they are in a conference with other mostly similar schools.

OK, NBC needs sports programming but they need it less than they need losses. NBC and other networks may occasionally overpay but for the most part they will see what programming can generate as far as advertising and they bid accordingly.

The problem that more college FB programming faces is that there are already many options in the prime viewing times, say noon to 9/10PM on Saturday so NBC having a BE FB game on in that time period means that game will have to draw viewers away from the other more established conferences. Tieing a BE game to their ND game may help but people do channel surf and soon many of the ND viewers will be elsewhere either before or after the ND game.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

ConnHuskBask,

I am not going to quote your whole post, but two thoughts:

1) The ACC contract that was SIGNED is for an average of $155/year for 10 years, or $13MM/school/year. ESPN announced that they had upped it to $17MM/school/year with the addition of Syracuse and Pitt, after the ACC agreed to throw a lot of new content into the deal. ESPN is under no obligation to renegotiate anything. There is an ASSUMPTION by some, that ESPN has factored in membership changes into the ACC deal, which is why it came in so light relative to the schools involved.

2) The championships you speak of with Pitt and Syracuse were decades ago. TCU and Utah have some recent success, as does WVU. The Texas A&M national title in football was during the war buildup prior to World War II. I had to look it up because I didn't realize they had ever won anything. You are right, that title is why the SEC took them. Missouri has been historically terrible at football, and they have the most NCAA Tournament appearances without a Final Four. Good work.

 

[Jimdish255]

A little off-topic but just heard Ed Cunningham over at College Football Live calling for "cooler heads" to prevail to stop the ACC defections and saying that ND and Texas will always be more valuable commodities than the others so if your making less money you should "get over it". Don't know what that has to do with anything but boy did he sound desperate. "The idea that the ACC is dead is ridiculous to me."

 

[Uptop]

For the purposes of this thread, don't argue what you think will happen. There are other threads for that. That said, this seems a lot more likely than it did even 2 days ago. Let's just assume the following:

Big 12 adds: FSU, GTech, Clemson, Louisville
Big 10 adds: UNC, UVa
SEC adds: NC State, VTech

Does the Big East even take BCU back? BCU sucks, and UMass is D1 now.

After more thought, if the scenario does play out, I'm now inclined to let BCU rot in hades and pay for their crimes and bring UMass into the conference.

Initially, I was hung up on old Big East stuff BCU had done for the conference < 2003 as well as a new Prez and AD to work with . However, thoses days are long gone and BCU is damaged goods and the only positive in taking them back at this juncture would be that we took them back from the acc, which may not be saying a lot it's blown to smithereens as I hope it is. If this conference is going to succeed it must focus on moving forward than going backwards. And bringing BCU back is going backwards. Let them stew in what they did.

The BIG EAST conference without proper representation from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a conference with a lost identity. UMass, because it's New England and because it's foaming at the mouth to be included on the college athletic map is a better addition than memphis, ucf, smu, houston sdsu and bringing back BCU will ever be. All it needs is the same venue with new leadership that UConn, RU, Cuse and alike have had to elevated their profiles; named the Big East Conference

Bringing the Flagship university of Massachusetts into the conference will undoubtedly elevate high school football in the state and is a better match up for the conference and UConn. High school players will aspire to play in the Big East. Currently, UConn is the only regional Big East option. Now with UMass as an option, it raises the competition bar for talent and forces UConn to step its game up.

In the south where college football has replaced cotton as king, high school championships are played in pro stadiums. Playing games in pro stadiums is big time and a big difference in the minds of kids. For UMass to play its 6-7 home games on the same field as the Patriotss is a big deal.

Perception wise UMass may not have the cache of other programs. But given a Big East invite, the outcomes may be as strong.

Huge upside.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

ConnHuskBask,

I am not going to quote your whole post, but two thoughts:

1) The ACC contract that was SIGNED is for an average of $155/year for 10 years, or $13MM/school/year. ESPN announced that they had upped it to $17MM/school/year with the addition of Syracuse and Pitt, after the ACC agreed to throw a lot of new content into the deal. ESPN is under no obligation to renegotiate anything. There is an ASSUMPTION by some, that ESPN has factored in membership changes into the ACC deal, which is why it came in so light relative to the schools involved.

By some? Internet message board posters? ESPN announced $17M per team. You can't just say it will be brought back down to $13M a year because some people assume it may have clauses in it.

2) The championships you speak of with Pitt and Syracuse were decades ago. TCU and Utah have some recent success, as does WVU. The Texas A&M national title in football was during the war buildup prior to World War II. I had to look it up because I didn't realize they had ever won anything. You are right, that title is why the SEC took them. Missouri has been historically terrible at football, and they have the most NCAA Tournament appearances without a Final Four. Good work.

Again, it's about tradition and whether or not you matter to the casual college football fan. Those schools either have tradition or have won big recently.

Who else was available that the SEC could have taken with as much tradition as Texas A&M? Waiting...
Missouri football is far from historically terrible at football too. From the wiki it looks like they didn't do much from the early 80s to late 90s. Missouri basketball? I forgot this had anything to do with basketball.

It's not about markets - it's about National draw. The teams that have it are in the big conferences and the teams that don't are on the outside looking in.

If only there was an example of a conference in major media markets, with average teams that had no national appeal and a sh1tty tv deal I would be able to prove my point....

 

[RS9999X]

ConnHuskBask,

I am not going to quote your whole post, but two thoughts:

1) The ACC contract that was SIGNED is for an average of $155/year for 10 years, or $13MM/school/year. ESPN announced that they had upped it to $17MM/school/year with the addition of Syracuse and Pitt, after the ACC agreed to throw a lot of new content into the deal. ESPN is under no obligation to renegotiate anything. There is an ASSUMPTION by some, that ESPN's has factored in membership changes into the ACC deal, which is why it came in so light relative to the schools involved. .

It's a mathetmatical sleight of hand. The word backloaded was used over and over (like the PAc-12 it's a 6% yearly escalator contract) . By my calcs that extra $4 million a year broke down half and half like so. $30 million of that $60 million is in the back end years that pay approx $22 mil, $23 mil and $24 mil each year. That's $30 million higher than a simple $13 mil average in those 3 years. The rest, $2 mil a year, is new money based on rights concessions.