I think ND goes to the Big 10 no matter what the ACC does. ND brings a whole network in itself and even if they had to split the money they will make it back in the conference tv deals. Most importantly it allows ND to play the most of their historic opponents in conference. Now they just need to schedule USC and Navy. Then they can play 2 easy OOC games. Just makes more sense for them.
The one argument for the ACC is they will probably let ND keep all their TV money and they only have to compete with 2 schools (FSU & VT) for the championship not 5 (OSU, UM, UW, Neb, tMSU?)
And remember Donna Shalala's arguments for joining the ACC? (1) A "real" conference that shares everything equally, and (2) a conference of our "peers."
And BTW when did Notre Dame last win anything in football? How about the 1988 season, although the Irish came close in 1993 and 1995?
'Two trivia questions: Who was the only coach fired after an undefeated season? Who was the only coach fired that had the Heisman Trophy winner? See white ink below for the answers.'
"The same answer to both questions: Frank Leahy of Notre Dame after a no-loss, one-tie season and with Johnny Laettner as the Heisman winner."
But again, I don't think the competition is either league is a negative; but rather, the appeal of the ACC is being an east coast league that stretches from north to south, the prestigious schools (private and public that are in the ACC); and a natural catholic rival school in BC. And as mentioned in previous posts, there are several people connected to the ACC with ND ties like our AD and Gene Corrigan that could help make the transition to the ACC a very smooth process.
this a downfall, unless the ACC is in a burning pile of rubble, because it *currently* dwarfs what the ACC has got - $20MM per school per year vs. $13MM per school per year. And I know that may not be true if/once the ACC renegotiates.
As for revenue sharing, it was an absolute red herring with respect to the Big XII schools that left, with the possible exception of Missouri. The Big XII currently shares revenue in the same manner as the SEC, and prior to Nebraska and Colorado leaving, Tier II rights were on the table to be split and the athletic directors had agreed to it. Tier 2 rights are equally split now, and schools can do what they want with Tier 3 rights which is a philosophical difference on who should market a school's athletic brand -- solely the conference, or the school, too. PAC Ten and Big Ten say former. SEC and Big XII say latter.
It's funny how Nebraska was "beside themselves" when they were benefitting from unequal revenue, and were actually making more on Tier 3 rights than Texas while in the Big XII. The Big Ten has more TV sets, more money, more tradition, etc. etc. Texas can agree to give up its first born in addition to equal revenue across the board, and the Big XII as it was, and as is currently, constituted, is NEVER going to get the same TV money as the SEC or Big 10 in the current environment. So I totally get the move. Same with A&M. But let's not pretend these teams weren't benefiting from what they were complaining about, or that revenue sharing was anywhere near the top 5 reasons for the move.
Nebraska and A&M saying that lack of revenue sharing is why they left the Big XII is like saying I'm going to take the $500K executive job in Chicago instead of the $300K executive job in Dallas because the Chicago firm pays its staff better. Yeah. That's the reason.
The other thing is that sharing of media revenues is, in itself, a fairly inconsequential deal for the power schools. The spread under the "unequal" Big 12 deal was something like $3 to $4 million between the top and bottom schools at its max (as opposed to the old Pac 10 structure that regularly had USC getting twice what Wazzu took in). It was nothing for UT and OU to concede that. And while equal sharing of media money might say something about the underlying relative position/worth of the member schools, no one pretends that any conference's members are equal in resources. Ohio State gets the same media dollars as Iowa. No one thinks they have the same resources. And no one is going to pool gate, concessions, merchandise sales, local sponsorships and AD donations to make sure those are "equal."
The departed Big 12 schools clearly had issues dealing with UT and OU admins. They generally thought they were as important as UT and OU and wanted that reflected in conference politics, governance and management. They were right insofar as they were able to find spots in elite, more-highly paying conferences. They were wrong insofar as the conference is drawing more revenue per school than ever before without them. The question I have is what they've gained other than a few million a year in revenue dollars in exchange for decades (or a century) of tradition. I guess they think it was worth it. Fair enough.
I a lot of people find it hard to believe that if Notre Dame joins an all-sport league, they would join the Big 10 and not the ACC. But that's not the case, as Peter Thamel of the New York Times just noted:
“The next critical Jenga piece is Notre Dame, which would definitely leave if the basketball universities left — and could possibly leave even if they don’t. The A.C.C. is the most likely destination. The Irish’s television contract with NBC, currently under negotiation, will go a long way in determining their future — as will how they fare as a stakeholder in the new college football playoff. That appears to be safe and stable for now. If Notre Dame leaves for the A.C.C., its only realistic destination, the A.C.C. will take Connecticut or Rutgers to make it a 16-team league. And that would send all the Big East blocks tumbling.”
I know that there is a significant financial difference between the Big 10 and the ACC at the moment, but the addition of Notre Dame (in addition to the recent additions of Pitt and Syracuse) would trigger a MAJOR restructuring of the ACC deal -- one that would close the gap significantly on the Big 10 and SEC.
Not saying it's going to happen ... only that if Notre Dame does give up its indeopendence, its most likely destination is the ACC, not the Big 10.
So, its the same with both of the more likely choices among conferences should Notre Dame decide to go and join a conference.
Now, why would Notre Dame gravitate to the ACC over the Big 10? Well, because a lot more people live in ACC team states than who live in Big 10 states. And, their are a lot more powerhouse Catholic programs in the East than there are in Big 10 states. Notre Dame attracts more students from States in which the ACC has and will have teams.
ESPN or whomever we contract with in the future will become more competitive with the Big 10 Network; it is the nature of competition. ACC Football will tend to improve relative to Big 10 Football, which also is the nature of how things work. Call it a type of reversion to the mean.
The ACC includes a growing demographic.
Notre Dame administrative folks understand all of this. I think what may be absent in the consideration is that were Notre Dame to decide to go ahead, we may add another powerhouse football program and that may not be either UConn or Rutgers.
In the long-run, the ACC would be the best choice for Notre Dame if joining a conference. I think this is abundantly clear.
$17MM per school through 2026-2027. Question is ---- considering what the other conferences are getting, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Or an indifferent thing?
KU is going to gross $20MM under the new Tier 1 and Tier 2 agreements the Big XII has with Fox and ESPN. Add to that the link I posted before where KU got around $7MM for tier 3 rights in 2009-2010, a number I imagine is at least holding steady, and you see KU getting ~$27MM total going forward.
Compare that to, I dunno, UNC, who in 2009-2010 got $11M for third tier programming according to the link. This is (at least mostly) contributed to ESPN in these latest ESPN contracts where each school shares equally across all tiers, at first $13MM , and now $17MM per year.
I'll grant that there may be some things in that $11M UNC was receiving that haven't been given over to ESPN -- since "third tier" is still such a nebulous concept. But the main point is that all of ACC's TV has been given over to ESPN, and at a price per school that is less than what other conferences are getting for just the first and second tier rights. When you see what schools from Florida to Texas to Kansas are getting for third-tier rights, it definitely seems like a second class deal. Now that could all change with Notre Dame, or this could scare away Notre Dame altogether. ESPN is too smart not to adjust if ND truly becomes an option for the ACC, but this new contract just seems like ESPN got the ACC locked down even further on the cheap. Hopefully there are some escalators in there if ND ever becomes viable.
( Fyi, I believe KU pulled in $9 million this year from Tier 3. )