Why not do the smart thing and just combine the 2 conferences, with the addition of Oregon St, Washington St, and Uconn. Divisions could be created regionally, and you have the best of both worlds in football and basketball. The ACC network would encompass the entire country making more, money for ESPN who could share revenue with fox.
That seems smart, but when you throw money and university valuations into the picture there's pretty much zero percent chance that would ever happen. If the top ACC brands (FSU, Clemson, ND, etc.) leave, then maybe there's a chance the remnants would try to do that.
the BiG had nixed them for a while, but pretty sure they're allowed again
guaranteed home game plus an automatic win. never.
It could be worth another $2-5 million cash increase per team per year to your media contract to swap your FCS game with an in conference game. When we get to the point where the schools are paying players directly I think the FCS games get cut for more cash. We arent there yet, but not hard to see it coming 5-10 years out. Its college football, traditions are hardly sacred!
Kobe, Cincinnati was 3-9 in their first Big 12 football season including 1-8 in the Big 12 (last place), you haven't made the NCAA men's basketball tournament since 2019, haven't made the women's NCAA basketball tournament since 2003, and have made the NCAA baseball tournament once since 1974. Sure, you are in a good conference, but Cincinnati hasn't proved that they can be competitive in the Big 12don’t worry. when we (big 12, power conference) add clemson and florida state there just might be room for you (uconn, mid major) to join a depleted and gutted acc to reunite with your big brothers boston college and syracuse. keep the faith lil fella!
Michigan, OSU, PSU and Wisconsin would lose money every other year with another conference game. With a 9 game conference schedule, every other year they have 8 home games and 7 the next. Those home games are gold mines with attendance over 100,000. Throw in the concessions and merchandise, those days can bring in millions of dollars, all for the home team. Take away that game every other year and you’ve lost money.
That not what tv people say about FCS games. We’ll see what happens with the math. This is more likely to happen with the ACC first.
Doesn’t matter if it’s against an FSC, MAC, CUSA or a power conference team, that 9th home game brings in millions of dollars for the top schools. Michigan hasn’t played an FCS school since 2009 when they played UMass, who was FCS at the time. It’s not who they play, it’s that it’s a home game.
Another issue that needs to be taken into consideration is the loss of revenue that would be experienced by the communities where these schools are located. One less weekend of full hotels, bars, restaurants, and shops would be a serious economic impact to a town like State College that counts on this revenue between August and November. From a network perspective it's a no brainer. Obviously, they would prefer to broadcast more games like USC v. Michigan, PSU v. UW, or OSU v. UO as opposed to games featuring Arkansas State, Marshall, or Ohio. That said how do you address the ripple effect a loss of a home game causes?
Look, different conf have different problems. In the ACC and elsewhere these non conf games, particularly the FCS games are a drag.
That isn't how it works. They'll just play one less against an FBS member of alternative stature.
The conversation around the SEC going from eight to nine in conf games is indicative of where this is all headed in the long run; the search for more revenue.
www.cbssports.com
Michigan's football ticket revenues per game are about $8 million and that doesn't include all the ancillary revenues. I would think it is really hard to give up a home game. Besides, the BTN needs content and they throw the lower tier games on the the network which is a paid channel and not really dependent on ratings.The conversation around the SEC going from eight to nine in conf games is indicative of where this is all headed in the long run; the search for more revenue.
SEC again considering nine-game league schedule weighing revenue, College Football Playoff access
The SEC has yet to find a reason to increase its league schedule, but two factors could change the conference's mind
Btw, Here is Jim Delaney on going to nine from a quote in 2011:
Nine Big Ten games in football for 2017
The Big Ten will use a nine-game conference schedule in football beginning in the 2017 season, the league announced Thursday.www.espn.com
"We can't expect people to attend games the way they have and grow the attendance," Delany said, "without giving them the best we can possibly give them."
FCS games could be on the table in a few more years.
People seem to forget that those big games are only interesting because those teams expect to win 9-12 games each year. They play most of their non-league games to fatten up their record, rarely playing more than one actually challenging non-conference opponent. It's also why they keep teams like Rutgers and Vandy around for an occasional easy in-conference win. It gives the team a break but ensures a strong record. Would anyone get all that excited about that PSU v. UW game if it was a matchup of two 6-5 teams?
I think its far more likely the NCAA allows a 13th game
Only three schools in the ACC average more than 70k per game. Those three schools are FSU, Clemson and ND. Outside those three schools the rest of the ACC is nothing like SEC or BIG.
Correction I should have said 77k.
The B12 pays a bit more, but a steady diet of K State and ISU is not what FSU and Clemson are looking for.
The Big 12 doesn't even pay more when you factor in the ACCN revenue..and the Big 12 has no conference network.
