It is in the air (at least on crazy message boards like this), so attempting to make one thread for all ACC expansion chatter.

Is this a viable path for the ACC?
Would ESPN give the ACC a bump for getting the network late kickoffs?
Is 2 enough? 4?
Does 6 water down ACC culture? Is that good or bad?
Would the ACC pay the PNW more than the XII?
More than the Pac with unequal sharing?
Is stability for 12 years worth more than a B1G gamble in 6?
Would this make FSU/Clemson more anxious to leave? Less?
What schedule format would they use?
How is the ND contract modified?
Does having ND allow them to take an odd number?

(12-19-2022 04:49 PM)Crayton Wrote:  It is in the air, so attempting to make one thread for all ACC expansion chatter.

Is this a viable path for the ACC?
Would ESPN give the ACC a bump for getting the network late kickoffs?
Is 2 enough? 4?
Does 6 water down ACC culture? Is that good or bad?
Would the ACC pay the PNW more than the XII?
More than the Pac with unequal sharing?
Is stability for 12 years worth more than a B1G gamble in 6?
Would this make FSU/Clemson more anxious to leave? Less?
What schedule format would they use?
How is the ND contract modified?
Does ND allow them to take an odd number?

Chatter?

1. I don't believe this is a viable path for the ACC.

2. They might, but you would be spreading it out 6 PAC schools and 14 ACC. You only really need four schools to maximize the value of the late night slot. Any more and you are diluting the value of the acquisition. Because of where the ACC is currently paid and the number of teams involved in this hypothetical, you might see a small bump.

3. I don't think ACC culture is a thing outside of tobacco road. This would just be another piece in the large puzzle.

4. I doubt it.

5. No, if unequal sharing is on the table then the PNW teams will make more in the PAC than anywhere else. But that also means that the other PAC schools would be making significantly less, which could entice a move. The Big 12 has essentially set the floor for PAC members, so any hardball that would cause a payout below what the Big 12 could offer won't fly.

6. I don't 12 year stability is going to be a worthy goal for the PAC institutions. The ones that want the B1G are going to want the opportunity to join when the time comes. The sooner, the better. Washington State value stability, because that means no movement. These are opposing goals and agendas for PAC members.

7. FSU/Clemson are going to want out as soon as they can leave. They won't be able due to the GOR but having a stop gap of PAC additions isn't going to bring them the kind of money they could get out of the SEC or B1G.

8. Probably divisionless with scheduling custom tailored to reduce east-west travel.

9. It won't be. It will either be maintained as is, or with a minor clause that Notre Dame only travels to legacy ACC schools.

10. Notre Dame doesn't care about who is added.

Is this a viable path for the ACC? Maybe.

Would ESPN give the ACC a bump for getting the network late kickoffs? There’s probably not a huge revenue bump, but likely at least adds enough markets that don’t compete with the ACC to at least maintain current ACC subscriber:school ratio. It potentially insulates the ACCN from pressure to reduce carriage costs as it spreads the interest over more markets.

Is 2 enough? 4?: This isn’t lucrative enough for UW and OU to put themselves in an island and sign off on any chance of a B1G invite until ~2035. There’s no way the ACC could pull two even if they wanted to. The middle of the PAC is also pretty solidly aligned with the rest of the ACC financially. Only the duplicated Oregon and Washington (and maybe Arizona) markets pose the potential to deag down the per school revenue.

Does 6 water down ACC culture? Is that good or bad? The PAC schools are quite institutionally similar to the core ACC schools.

- Stanford and Duke are basically E:W twins. Miami is a ways back as a private.
- Cal, UW, UNC are all academically elite large publics. CU, Pitt, and UVA are a step behind.
- NCState, GT, AZ, ASU, Utah, Oregon, GT are all barely in or barely out of AAU large publics. FSU and Syracuse are right behind.
- Oregon State, WSU, Louisville, Wake Forest, and Boston College probably are slight outliers for both conferences.

Would the ACC pay the PNW more than the XII? The ACC network model would benefit more from their addition than the BigXII would.

More than the Pac with unequal sharing? Maybe.

Is stability for 12 years worth more than a B1G gamble in 6? Depends on what OU/UW see in the cards.

Would this make FSU/Clemson more anxious to leave? Less? No more or less.

What schedule format would they use? West Wing plays themselves plus one home and one away vs East wing. East either visits or hosts a West school annually.

How is the ND contract modified? It’s not.

Does ND allow them to take an odd number? Sure. 7+7+7 would work. But as mentioned early, adding 10 would be best (KU and SDSU in place of OSU and WSU). 5 pods of 5 including ND.

It might be a very unlikely scenario, but…
1) The B1G keeps suggesting that they’ll eventually expand, even if it’s 6 years down the road. This will eventually limit ESPN’s late time slot options (ESPN will have to pay B1G-level premiums to have B1G-level quality content). AND
2) Some PAC schools may not want too much of their content on a streaming service (it limits exposure when they’ve just suffered a financial fiasco from the PACN). The PNW brands don’t want to risk the approach that Kliavkoff is preparing (even though it makes PAC and B12 revenues comparable).

Why wouldn’t ESPN explore the potential of moving the best remaining PAC brands to the ACC? The biggest hurdles are money and travel.

The money doesn’t have to be B1G nor SEC-level, the content won’t be as valuable. Nevertheless, the money needs to be an upgrade over what the ACC is currently getting (which seems relatively comparable to the B12 and likely PAC deals). Enough money for new programs to accept a 12 year commitment (aka, ACC GOR). ESPN needs to evaluate whether the ACC contract has the room for higher content payouts.

The travel issues can be addressed if the expansion is big enough, probably 4 or 5 schools. There would be a true western pod with rivals and coordinated scheduling.

(12-19-2022 04:49 PM)Crayton Wrote:  It is in the air (at least on crazy message boards like this), so attempting to make one thread for all ACC expansion chatter.

Is this a viable path for the ACC? I have been talking about this scenario since the announcement of USC and UCLA. Yes I think it’s a viable path.
Would ESPN give the ACC a bump for getting the network late kickoffs? Late kickoff is a bonus. I think the value of UO and UW is higher than the median ACC (but much lower than the median BIG value). So we will see the increase.
Is 2 enough? 4? 4 is ideal but the ACC may go with only two.
Does 6 water down ACC culture? Is that good or bad? Most likely fifth and sixth school won’t increase the payout in my opinion. If the ACC goes for the 20 team football conference, the fifth addition should be a Texas based school.
Would the ACC pay the PNW more than the XII? I believe so. The ACC payout will be larger than the B12 as things stand. And the ESPN would be willing to pay for the ACC more than B12.
More than the Pac with unequal sharing? This is a maybe. But remember the ACC is also thinking about the unequal sharing.
Is stability for 12 years worth more than a B1G gamble in 6? It depends on a school. UO and UW have a very low chance of getting the BIG invite in my opinion. Stanford has a better chance as a tag along with ND. But personally I think ND will stay until 2035 and the next cycle will come if and when ND decides to leave.
Would this make FSU/Clemson more anxious to leave? Less? Clemson is not going to leave. FSU will try to leave no matter what.
What schedule format would they use? With 16, 3-6-6, with 18, 1-8-8, and with 20, 4-5-5-5.
How is the ND contract modified? Probably not although I want to see them play six ACC games if the ACC expands to 18.
Does having ND allow them to take an odd number? 15 is possible. 17 or 19 is less likely.

I'm not losing any sleep contemplating an ACC expansion involving PNW teams. I think the chances of anything like that happening are minuscule.

Personally, I actually don't find the prospect of some Pac-12 schools eventually joining the ACC in the *long*-term (AKA after 2030) that crazy.

Now, I don't think the PNW schools specifically are going to sign anything - whether it's a new GOR or joining a new league - that's going to restrict them from joining the Big Ten beyond the expiration date of the current Big Ten TV contract.

It's not so much the most likely Big Ten targets in the Pac-12 (Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal) that are interesting to watch, but rather the Four Corners schools. I still believe that those schools have a *big*-time bias against having to go to the Big 12 in a disaster situation and may very well prefer a nationalized ACC that has more institutional fits and academic prestige instead.

I'm honestly fairly bullish about the ACC long-term. While some schools might want to leave for the Big Ten or SEC, they're legitimately bound to the league until the mid-2030s because of the GOR. And frankly, even if the schools that the Big Ten and/or SEC wanted *did* leave, there are still going to be enough major historical old school institutions and markets in the ACC that they're going to still be in a stronger position than either the Pac-12 or Big 12.

(12-20-2022 09:32 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Personally, I actually don't find the prospect of some Pac-12 schools eventually joining the ACC in the *long*-term (AKA after 2030) that crazy.

Now, I don't think the PNW schools specifically are going to sign anything - whether it's a new GOR or joining a new league - that's going to restrict them from joining the Big Ten beyond the expiration date of the current Big Ten TV contract.

It's not so much the most likely Big Ten targets in the Pac-12 (Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal) that are interesting to watch, but rather the Four Corners schools. I still believe that those schools have a *big*-time bias against having to go to the Big 12 in a disaster situation and may very well prefer a nationalized ACC that has more institutional fits and academic prestige instead.

I'm honestly fairly bullish about the ACC long-term. While some schools might want to leave for the Big Ten or SEC, they're legitimately bound to the league until the mid-2030s because of the GOR. And frankly, even if the schools that the Big Ten and/or SEC wanted *did* leave, there are still going to be enough major historical old school institutions and markets in the ACC that they're going to still be in a stronger position than either the Pac-12 or Big 12.

I don't disagree that the bias exists, foolish though it may be. I just think that if the final structure is going to be some P3 National Conference, then the Big 12 is infinitely more suited to be the core of that conference due to its centrality and existing eastern and western members. This is opposed to having a conference of two extreme coastal wings.

This is doubly true if we are considering a Post-Raid ACC or PAC.

(12-19-2022 07:02 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 04:49 PM)Crayton Wrote:  It is in the air (at least on crazy message boards like this), so attempting to make one thread for all ACC expansion chatter.

Is this a viable path for the ACC? I have been talking about this scenario since the announcement of USC and UCLA. Yes I think it’s a viable path.
Would ESPN give the ACC a bump for getting the network late kickoffs? Late kickoff is a bonus. I think the value of UO and UW is higher than the median ACC (but much lower than the median BIG value). So we will see the increase.
Is 2 enough? 4? 4 is ideal but the ACC may go with only two.
Does 6 water down ACC culture? Is that good or bad? Most likely fifth and sixth school won’t increase the payout in my opinion. If the ACC goes for the 20 team football conference, the fifth addition should be a Texas based school.
Would the ACC pay the PNW more than the XII? I believe so. The ACC payout will be larger than the B12 as things stand. And the ESPN would be willing to pay for the ACC more than B12.
More than the Pac with unequal sharing? This is a maybe. But remember the ACC is also thinking about the unequal sharing.
Is stability for 12 years worth more than a B1G gamble in 6? It depends on a school. UO and UW have a very low chance of getting the BIG invite in my opinion. Stanford has a better chance as a tag along with ND. But personally I think ND will stay until 2035 and the next cycle will come if and when ND decides to leave.
Would this make FSU/Clemson more anxious to leave? Less? Clemson is not going to leave. FSU will try to leave no matter what.
What schedule format would they use? With 16, 3-6-6, with 18, 1-8-8, and with 20, 4-5-5-5.
How is the ND contract modified? Probably not although I want to see them play six ACC games if the ACC expands to 18.
Does having ND allow them to take an odd number? 15 is possible. 17 or 19 is less likely.

6 games is not happening under an scheme that is cooked up. ND will not farther commit themselves to the ACC.

ACC: All-Coastal Conference

(12-20-2022 09:50 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 09:32 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Personally, I actually don't find the prospect of some Pac-12 schools eventually joining the ACC in the *long*-term (AKA after 2030) that crazy.

Now, I don't think the PNW schools specifically are going to sign anything - whether it's a new GOR or joining a new league - that's going to restrict them from joining the Big Ten beyond the expiration date of the current Big Ten TV contract.

It's not so much the most likely Big Ten targets in the Pac-12 (Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal) that are interesting to watch, but rather the Four Corners schools. I still believe that those schools have a *big*-time bias against having to go to the Big 12 in a disaster situation and may very well prefer a nationalized ACC that has more institutional fits and academic prestige instead.

I'm honestly fairly bullish about the ACC long-term. While some schools might want to leave for the Big Ten or SEC, they're legitimately bound to the league until the mid-2030s because of the GOR. And frankly, even if the schools that the Big Ten and/or SEC wanted *did* leave, there are still going to be enough major historical old school institutions and markets in the ACC that they're going to still be in a stronger position than either the Pac-12 or Big 12.

I don't disagree that the bias exists, foolish though it may be. I just think that if the final structure is going to be some P3 National Conference, then the Big 12 is infinitely more suited to be the core of that conference due to its centrality and existing eastern and western members. This is opposed to having a conference of two extreme coastal wings.

This is doubly true if we are considering a Post-Raid ACC or PAC.

The conference that becomes the de facto P3 will come down to which has the least dead weight and redundancy. And that probably means a MWC-like breakaway after all the mezzanine conferences have backfilled with programs that aren’t desirable for the P3 and have legacy members that haven’t kept up with P3 benchmarks.

The question isn’t going to be which of the mezzanine 3 persists but which left-behind programs are at the airport meeting.

They’d only add 4 West Coast teams. Not sure where people get the idea of six adds from.

Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal to the B1G, the remaining 6 go to the NB12.

The ACC loses UNC, UVa and Duke to the SEC.

The NB12 loses Kansas to the SEC, and UCF Cincinnati and West Virginia to the ACC.

Game over.

(12-20-2022 11:06 AM)Poster Wrote:  They’d only add 4 West Coast teams. Not sure where people get the idea of six adds from.

Doesn't work from a pod or even protected rival schedule. There is no way they'd want a 3+7/7. At least three east coast trips a year. There are hardly any midwest teams in the ACC (UL perhaps) to make it comparable to a USCLA situation.

Any short term realignment would have schools going to the Big 12 pending money pocketed from early OUT exit. Once schools like CU and Zona are lured, the ACC will have leverage on UO and UW (plus Bay teams).

I still think it's more likely the PAC just adds SDSU and CSU as backfills to continue at 8-10 schools for the rest of the decade.

There are simply no indications that going to the ACC will improve profit margins over remaining in a 10-team PAC10 (barring 2-3x guaranteed games versus ND), latter of which remains the most likely outcome.

I think it's unlikely the PNW schools hitch themselves to the ACC, which rests on a platter under glass for now like a turkey just waiting for its choicest bits to be carved off. But while there is nothing the ACC can do that would make me want Florida State to spend another minute there than is absolutely required to avoid financial ruin, this could make serving out our sentence more interesting. ACC opponents are largely so uninteresting that adding virtually anybody new and different would make for some more fun and unusual contests, and also result in fewer games against the uninspiring current membership.

A PAC/ACC Merger would be very beneficial to both conferences in these regards...

1) Guarantees that BOTH conferences are now the 3rd best conference behind the Big 10/SEC. It would no doubt then move the Big 12 behind them. This would be very appealing to the PAC and ACC schools in the middle to lower end of those conferences.

2) It would insulate both of them from poaching from Big 10/SEC in the future. If they lost a couple of schools...they could easily back load from the Big 12. If they are at 24....and lose 4-6.....you just backload with Kansas, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, etc.

3) Increases or at least keeps the same high academic profiles of both conferences. This is rare.

4) Smart scheduling could reduce travel concerns.

5) 4 Time Zones means all day content.

West: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford
Mountain: Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Louisville, Pitt.
Atlantic: Syracuse, NC State, Wake Forrest, Boston College, Clemson, Florida State.
Coastal: UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia, Virginia Tech.

(12-20-2022 11:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  I think it's unlikely the PNW schools hitch themselves to the ACC, which rests on a platter under glass for now like a turkey just waiting for its choicest bits to be carved off. But while there is nothing the ACC can do that would make me want Florida State to spend another minute there than is absolutely required to avoid financial ruin, this could make serving out our sentence more interesting. ACC opponents are largely so uninteresting that adding virtually anybody new and different would make for some more fun and unusual contests, and also result in fewer games against the uninspiring current membership.

The ACC might be able to attract Oregon and Washington with an unequal revenue sharing model, which the ACC (unlike the PAC) has openly expressed some interest in.


If Oregon and Washington leave, the PAC would be so watered down that Stanford and Cal would have little choice but to also leave.


The ACC also has a somewhat profitable TV network, unlike the PAC network, which (even with USC in the PAC) seems to actually be a money loser for the conference once you subtract the opportunity cost of having less games on ESPN.

(12-20-2022 11:41 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  I think it's unlikely the PNW schools hitch themselves to the ACC, which rests on a platter under glass for now like a turkey just waiting for its choicest bits to be carved off. But while there is nothing the ACC can do that would make me want Florida State to spend another minute there than is absolutely required to avoid financial ruin, this could make serving out our sentence more interesting. ACC opponents are largely so uninteresting that adding virtually anybody new and different would make for some more fun and unusual contests, and also result in fewer games against the uninspiring current membership.

FSU traveling to the PNW or vice versa does nothing from a TV standpoint. Sure, it could involve two top ten teams on the very off chance, but that matchup wouldn't get a 4th window billing anyhow. And how many fans would even stay up to watch their teams after dark? None of it remotely makes sense, aside from a full fledged division out there.

Throw Utah CU and Zona into the PN4 package and you have maximum possible value, but it doesn't add more than a couple million per incumbent school if that (it could be dilutive in fact). It just helps the west coast schools by getting a game or two on the east coast every year. It's really a penalty for the incumbent schools.

(12-19-2022 04:49 PM)Crayton Wrote:  It is in the air (at least on crazy message boards like this), so attempting to make one thread for all ACC expansion chatter.

Is this a viable path for the ACC?

In time there is a path. If Cal/Stanford do not get a B1G invite they would rather be associated with ACC schools academically than B12 if other PAC schools leave the conference.

For now, there is not. FSU and others, who want to leave for SEC/B1G, will not allow any expansion, unless it brings the per year value near SEC/B1G levels (which won't happen). It will be similar to what UT and USC did to their respective conferences before they left. Once those schools leave, there could be realignment in the ACC once again.

Would ESPN give the ACC a bump for getting the network late kickoffs?

Not overall. It would be factored in to the value that a Cal and Stanford bring, because those schools provide the windows. We would not see it as a "bump" though. It would just be Cal/Stanford value.

Is 2 enough? 4?

I only see Cal and Stanford going, and only if they do not get a B1G invite, but Oregon/Washington would have. I do not see any movement happening for the ACC until around 2036. By that time, other schools would have left to the B1G/B12. Cal and Stanford would be willing to pay the travel, and would be forced to reduce the amount of sports to remain in an academically similar conference to them.

Does 6 water down ACC culture? Is that good or bad?

I do not see six PAC schools in any scenario. I do not see how adding six would be beneficial to other ACC schools. PAC schools do not provide enough outside of California to warrant their inclusion. I do not think they will be able to pull B12 either because of their 99-year exit fee.

What will water the culture down is a likely scenario of UNC leaving. They are the culture in the ACC, and if they leave, the conference will need to find a way to re-identify themselves to prevent more movement.

Would the ACC pay the PNW more than the XII?

It is too far down the road to make that guess. There are too many questions that are too hard to answer: Will an ACC Network still be viable or will streaming replace it? Will enough people until then watch the ACC Network to have it pull more money than the B12?

That said, in this scenario, Cal/Stanford would be in an ACC without FSU/Miami/UNC/Clemson, at least, and with other defections. Just including the P2 conferences (the more likely scenario, to me, is 20) there would be 6 plus Oregon/Washington, and I think a couple could trickle to the B12 as well (football culture schools who did not get into P2 where the ACC would not be a viable option for them anymore.)

I would doubt schools would get more than the B12. It will more than likely be the same amount. We will truly be heading to a P2/M3?2? scenario if this happens.


More than the Pac with unequal sharing?

A major way an ACC move could happen is if the PAC gets unequal revenue sharing and "lesser" schools (Arizona/Colorado) leave to B12 for better money, equal competition, and improved exposure. The PAC would be forced to add schools who will dilute the contract. The lower dollar amount would force movement to the ACC.

Is stability for 12 years worth more than a B1G gamble in 6?

It depends on the school in the PAC. It is all about brand value. Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford are in a position where they can increase it with a B1G move. Now that USCLA has left, any other move will be a reduction in brand value for them, including staying in the PAC. Right now their only move is to wait on the B1G.

4Cs don't have as clear as a road to the B1G/SEC. The smart conservative move would be to leave to the B12 for stability. The benefit of increasing their brand value (B1G) does not equal the likelihood they could decrease their value by not being associated with a competitive conference (not B12). Whether it is for two years or 12, a PAC membership is not stable, even if they stay together. The bigger brands will leave WHEN they get an invite to greener pastures. If 4Cs stay, they risk not getting into B12 in the future, and possibly be forced into a diminished/lower level ACC/PAC.

Would this make FSU/Clemson more anxious to leave? Less?

They are leaving. I do not see any move, barring a Texas/Oklahoma/Ohio St. decide to join the ACC, which would be almost nil to happening. If a Texas, Oklahoma, and USC left their conferences, then FSU and Clemson will leave theirs.

What schedule format would they use?

It will be a similar format to other conferences. They will have protected schools (like ND) who will want to associate themselves with Cal/Stanford yearly. Others will rotate.

How is the ND contract modified?

It will be a continuation of the old into the new.

Does having ND allow them to take an odd number?

For the ACC/B12/PAC, neither conference has the luxury about worrying about "Feng Shui Conferences". All three conferences need to add programs that make their conference better than before. Adding an albatross program to get to an even number will hurt value and hurt further expansion opportunities. Not adding a program that would help your conference helps another, which gives your conference a lesser chance at survival.