*** ACC Expansion Update ***
The ACC spring meeting was intense to say the least. The shock wave of the Magnificent 7 news was just so strong that many people (and some reporters) instantly jumped to the conclusion that the ACC is one step away from a total collapse.
But there were also a couple of interesting tidbits reported after the spring meeting regarding the [possibility of] ACC expansion. David Hale, ESPN reporter, tweeted that ACC has looked at a few, including Oregon, Washington, SMU and West Virginia. Brett McMurphy, ActionNetwork reporter, reported the following:
The only way the ACC can receive significantly more money from ESPN is by expanding. Sources told Action Network that if the ACC adds additional teams — whether from the Power 5 or Group of Five — ESPN contractually must pay the ACC a pro-rata amount for each new member.
The ACC, if it desired, could add four more schools (almost certainly Group of Five programs), pay them a reduced amount and split the remaining revenue between the existing members. However, that likely would only increase the current membership’s revenue by a few million dollars a year until the new members would earn full shares.
So contrary to the common belief that the ACC is stuck in a bad contract and cannot make any move, the ACC actually considered a few schools, and there is a path to increase revenue through expansion.
We already knew this. But the new information here is that McMurphy confirmed that ESPN is contractually obligated to pay the ACC a pro rate amount for any new member whether it’s a G5 school or a P5 school.
To be clear, both David Hale and Brett McMurphy do not believe the ACC would expand any time soon. And an obvious question is if an expansion is such a sure bet, how come the ACC didn’t expand when there were more suitable G5 schools including Cincinnati and Houston in 2021?
Still, I think the ACC expansion may happen. In fact, the probability of expansion is higher than ever in my opinion. Why? The ACC schools desperately need more money and there are only three ways I can think of that ESPN would pay more money to the ACC.
1. Renegotiate with ESPN during a “look-in” period.
2. Switch to a 9 conference game format
3. Expansion
During the press conference at the conclusion of spring meeting, the ACC Commissioner, John Phillips, had a Q&A session and addressed all three topics.
I really doubt ESPN would agree to provide more money during a look-in period. Phillips said the next look-in is in a few years anyway. Phillips also said that the league is not ready to move to a 9-game scheduling. I doubt ESPN would pay for the nine game schedule anyway.
This leaves expansion as a sole option for the ACC to extract more money from ESPN. When asked whether the ACC even discussed expansion, Phillips flatly said that they discuss it FREQUENTLY. Yes, you read it right. This is something the ACC leadership is really looking into.
Then why no expansion so far? Because there were not enough votes!
The ACC needs 12 votes to expand, meaning mere 4 schools would be able to block any expansion initiative. And I suspect the small schools do not really have any appetite for a football expansion. These schools may view a new football oriented school as a potential threat to undermine their power within the league. Remember the old Big East Football Conference, which was a hybrid between football schools and basketball schools? Many basketball schools were very reluctant of (or flat out against) any football expansion.
Then why do I say the probability of expansion is higher than ever? Because I believe the voting behavior may change after the breaking the M7 news. We already saw the ACC presidents agreed to move toward a performance based revenue sharing. That was a non starter for years.
The M7 news and subsequent development regarding unequal revenue sharing (success incentive initiative) clearly shows that the M7 schools take the revenue issue very very seriously. I also believe this was a real wake-up call for non M7 schools that the M7 schools are dead serious about the revenue gap and they may even take a collective action. I don’t believe the GoR is breakable. But for sure, non M7 schools need to start thinking about the post 2036 and may realize that the expansion would ensure the ACC’s survival. The PittNews recently ran a column titled “Save the ACC through expansion.”
https://pittnews.com/article/181225/spor...expansion/
Now, who should the ACC target for an expansion?
I am fairly certain that ESPN would be happy to pay the pro rata for certain Pac schools, and I was hoping to see that happen. It may still happen. But after the Spring meeting drama I now suspect that at least some of M7 schools want to maximize the profit until 2036 rather than building a strong and long lasting conference. If the ACC gives only a half share to an incoming G5 school, then the existing ACC schools would receive an additional $1 million or slightly more from ESPN annually. If the ACC adds four schools, that would translate to an additional $4 or $5 million payout. In other words, it now seems to me that the M7 schools may prefer a short term revenue boost through getting G5 schools over building a national conference by adding the Pac schools and getting a minimal pay increase. I also don’t know whether some of small non M7 schools have any desire to associate with West Coast schools.
Obviously, ESPN won’t like most G5 schools. The only schools that I can think of ESPN may be willing to pay the pro rata for are SMU (because getting into Texas would also boost ESPN’s ACCN income) and UConn (because its basketball program is a top tier and ESPN views the ACC as a basketball property).
I think Phillips would have enough votes for SMU. It’s a small school in Texas so small schools in the ACC would be less reluctant and Texas is a completely new market that wouldn’t invade anyone’s turf. For large M7 schools, SMU would provide an opportunity to play in Texas and expand the recruiting reach. In addition, the ACCN money increase would be significant. No wonder SMU was one of four schools listed in Hale’s tweets. SMU was reported in June 2022 to have a discussion with the Power 5 conferences including the ACC. I think at this point SMU is probably a front runner for ACC expansion.
I am much less certain about UConn, though. Its football program has been terrible so the football schools in the ACC wouldn’t welcome UConn in open arms. BC and Syracuse may not want another Northeastern team in the league. The state of Connecticut is not known for a football recruiting and it is not large so the ACCN money increase is not going to be much.
Knowing the ACC, I think Tulane is a dark horse candidate. Tulane is a lightweight in sports and Louisiana is not Texas. But its academics is good and the school profile is similar to some of private ACC schools. SMU and Tulane may make a decent pair for the ACC expansion. However, I really don’t know whether ESPN would be happy about paying the ACC money to Tulane.
Lastly, the ACC should continue to monitor the Pac 12 situation. If Colorado and/or Arizona bolts for the Big 12 as rumored, it may be worth talking to ASU/Utah and other Pac 12 schools. If they can come at discount, they should be preferred choice for the ACC.
__________
The above posting can be also found at Hokie Mark’s blog:
https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/?m=1
He likes Memphis by the way.
![[Image: ACC+Memphis+SMU+Tulane+USF.png]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEe8Kma-KE66Maxgfl8H85m3jElhpLvYmBEH-xVGziqspmP10aoBWS6T9mnfWwMSdTOxU-e-l5-CSYNpz6mwkavixV2aeaHsP4UeRdq4OP2QQufYlS5ESTy8fDljqyt5Z5dou3BRwrvNOTM-2nAQZ9UrgxPsUycz1zwvThupiQL0DivaNfk-MFG4yFoA/w320-h265/ACC+Memphis+SMU+Tulane+USF.png)
/
Is the expansion still an option for the ACC?
