Conference Realignment 2022-23

[Steven43]

Because money isn't literally the only deciding factor for all decisions at all times and there are decision makers/stakeholders here who may not necessarily prioritize athletic profits over all else, would be my bet.

Well, chrishoke literally stated that his question was dumb, so perhaps we should take him at his word?

[CameronBornAndBred]

A wish list?
Duke ain't on it.

The Big Ten reportedly has its eyes set on four additional teams for expansion — two more from the Pac-12, Notre Dame and a surprising team from the ACC.

Jeff Ermann of 247Sports tweeted on Monday that the Big Ten is still looking to add to the league, with four particular teams on its wish list: Notre Dame, Oregon, Stanford and North Carolina. This, of course, was considered the league’s wish list and doesn’t guarantee they’ll make a move for those programs but at least shows what the Big Ten is thinking for expansion.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-...004442486.html

[duke2x]

A wish list?
Duke ain't on it.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-...004442486.html

There's lots of clickbait every time teams shuffle conferences, and I have to file that article in the circular file. Thankfully, there's no chance UNC leaves for the Big 10 by itself. Boosters have too much influence over there, and they share the same SEC delusion as Clemson and Texas. They are, after all, Oklahoma during the week and Harvard on Saturday.

[CameronBornAndBred]

There's lots of clickbait every time teams shuffle conferences, and I have to file that article in the circular file. Thankfully, there's no chance UNC leaves for the Big 10 by itself. Boosters have too much influence over there, and they share the same SEC delusion as Clemson and Texas. They are, after all, Oklahoma during the week and Harvard on Saturday.

Well, the article is based around a tweet from Jeff Ermann, who seems to be respectable enough. He's a Maryland guy, but gets paid by folks who vest in his opinion. (247, CBS, etc.)

[Dr. Maturin]

Everyone (not just on this board) seems to be jumping to extreme conclusions, and I suppose that's understandable. I remember some of these same conversations circa 2012. What eventually happened then was a more moderate conference realignment. It's possible, maybe even likely, that this round of realignment (or more properly, consolidation) is the "big one." I don't think it's the only outcome. I have no idea what will happen, but I do have some observations:

1) I wouldn't be so quick to assume members are ready to ditch the ACC. If the likes of FSU and Clemson were so eager to leave, why did they pledge their media rights through 2036? Remember, the current GOR was signed in 2016, after the previous round of realignment and after Maryland left the conference. I imagine schools like FSU and Clemson had conversations with other leagues and decided sticking with the ACC was the best move for them. Yes, circumstances have changed somewhat in recent years. It's possible that the answer to the question is "FSU and Clemson would have left if they had invites before, but they didn't. Now that the SEC/B1G want to expand, FSU and Clemson are itching to leave." But I still think the ACC has something to offer. For one thing, it is much easier for Clemson to make the College Football Playoff as a member of the ACC than it would be in the SEC.

2) I wouldn't be quick to assume these Grant of Rights deals can be broken - it is not a coincidence that Oklahoma/Texas and USC/UCLA are moving at the expiration of their respective GOR deals. At minimum, the GOR provides significant security for the schools who want to remain in the ACC.

3) I wouldn't be quick to assume that a few falling dominoes will bring everything crashing down. I've seen a lot of people say that if FSU and Clemson leave, that the league will collapse. Why? Where is everyone going to go? I suppose the driver here is how big the SEC/B1G want to get. If both leagues want 20-25 members, then I could see much of the ACC getting plucked. But I don't think that's the only outcome here. It's possible that a few schools leave, and the ACC continues on, albeit in a diminished capacity.

4) I think we may underestimate the risk to the SEC/B1G in forming a new SuperLeague outside of the NCAA. There is a lot of talk of those leagues forming something of an NFL-style league with 40~ teams. It could happen, and the networks would pay a fortune for those rights. But I think folks are underestimating how much those schools need the rest of Division I. The CFB ecosystem is different from the NFL in fundamental ways. The big football schools schedule 7-8 home games a year with a number of easy wins on the schedule, allowing them to win 9+ games and go to a bowl every year. The fans get to celebrate a winning tradition, which sells tickets and grows the fanbase, etc. All of that would have to be recalibrated in a SuperLeague. Somebody has to go 4-8. Some major football powers are going to become the equivalent of the New York Jets. Can you sell that without losing much of what makes CFB so popular? Maybe. But I'm not sure. This SuperLeague would have other things to lose as well, namely the Basketball Tournament. I'm not so sure the SEC/B1G SuperLeague could approximate March Madness. All in all, I'm not saying the SuperLeague idea can't or won't happen. I'm just pointing out the risk in blowing up a system that already makes these schools a lot of money. It's possible the SEC/B1G grow to 16-20 teams each, but stay in the NCAA. Such a realignment would create a new "power 2" but leave the PAC/Big12/ACC as secondary conferences.

My big takeway is that big changes are probably coming, and it's not good news for Duke or the ACC. But I'm not completely sold that the ACC is going to collapse.

[Acymetric]

4) I think we may underestimate the risk to the SEC/B1G in forming a new SuperLeague outside of the NCAA. There is a lot of talk of those leagues forming something of an NFL-style league with 40~ teams. It could happen, and the networks would pay a fortune for those rights. But I think folks are underestimating how much those schools need the rest of Division I. The CFB ecosystem is different from the NFL in fundamental ways. The big football schools schedule 7-8 home games a year with a number of easy wins on the schedule, allowing them to win 9+ games and go to a bowl every year. The fans get to celebrate a winning tradition, which sells tickets and grows the fanbase, etc. All of that would have to be recalibrated in a SuperLeague. Somebody has to go 4-8. Some major football powers are going to become the equivalent of the New York Jets. Can you sell that without losing much of what makes CFB so popular? Maybe. But I'm not sure.

Thank you for putting into much better words something that I have been trying to point at. Great post (can't spork).

In addition to this effect, I think people have to remember that not all the eyeballs drawn to Alabama or OSU or whoever are fans of those schools. If two 20 team super conferences form and split off from the rest, are the eyeballs of fans for the other ~80-90 FBS schools who didn't make the cut going to follow? I don't think that can be taken for granted.

[CameronBornAndBred]

My big takeway is that big changes are probably coming, and it's not good news for Duke or the ACC. But I'm not completely sold that the ACC is going to collapse.

My biggest issue is all of the assumptions that multiple (if any) ACC teams are B1G bound. They will stand at 16 teams once USC and UCLA climb on board. Let's go with the guesswork that they are aiming for 20. Well, that's only 4 more spots. I've read numerous posts saying how perfect a fit UVA, Duke, and Carolina would be.
It's very unlikely that the folks up north are eyeing 3 ACC teams (plus ND). There's only so much room at their table, and it's pretty likely that they want two of those chairs to be taken by Oregon and Washington. IF they manage to break ND's independence spell, that leaves one more slot.

Of course nobody knows what's going to happen. Not with their conference or our own. But it's very unlikely that more than two of our own migrate their way. (If it's even two, which is a stretch for right now.)

[1Devil]

...Somebody has to go 4-8...

Sure, even today in the Big Ten you have Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska who are happy to satisfy this requirement in most years. The SEC is a little better at the bottom except for Vanderbilt, but you still have South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and the Mississippi schools with sub-.500 traditions (I'm sure their fans will take issue). The administrators at these schools are just fine with putting mediocre teams on the field while cashing large checks. Their fans are accustomed to the mediocrity.

[JasonEvans]

In addition to this effect, I think people have to remember that not all the eyeballs drawn to Alabama or OSU or whoever are fans of those schools. If two 20 team super conferences form and split off from the rest, are the eyeballs of fans for the other ~80-90 FBS schools who didn't make the cut going to follow? I don't think that can be taken for granted.

And I would add this -- if the SEC and Big Ten break away and turn dozens of previously high-powered programs into afterthoughts, how excited are fans of those programs going to be about watching the games played by the folks who just ruined their college sports relevance? If you are a die-hard Va Tech or NC State or Miami fan and your team is left on the outside looking in, are you really going to make those big games between those hated Big Ten and SEC clubs appointment viewing? There is an potential unintended consequence here that could really impact the TV rating bottom lines where dozens of fan bases decide to boycott the schools/conferences that ruined what had been a reasonably stable college sports system.

I would add one more thing -- if I wanted to watch the absolutely best basketball competition outside of the NBA, I would not watch college basketball or March Madness, I would watch the G-League (don't kid yourself, even a bad G-League team would wax the floor with Duke or Gonzaga). I watch the NCAA because all these teams are related in some way to a program about which I have a deep connection. If the SEC or Big Ten were to break away, I'm fairly sure I would not watch much, if any, of their basketball. I might watch a little bit of the football because I am a bit of a UGA fan due to a lifetime of geographic proximity. I am sure I am not alone in feeling this way.

You know who could be the big loser in all this? ESPN, CBS, ABC, and so on when they sign a 10-year contract at $1 bil per year (or something like that) to broadcast what they expect to be huge ratings-grabbing games that turn out to be merely "ok" when it comes to garnering TV ratings because many college sports fans don't care about those games at all.

[1Devil]

You know who could be the big loser in all this? ESPN, CBS, ABC, and so on when they sign a 10-year contract at $1 bil per year (or something like that) to broadcast what they expect to be huge ratings-grabbing games that turn out to be merely "ok" when it comes to garnering TV ratings because many college sports fans don't care about those games at all.

I would agree with this last bit. To be honest, I don't see why college football is as popular as it is. It's fun to be there for a game, but allocating 4 hours to watch one on TV is usually too much for me. But a whole lot of people feel differently.

[Acymetric]

There is an potential unintended consequence here that could really impact the TV rating bottom lines where dozens of fan bases decide to boycott the schools/conferences that ruined what had been a reasonably stable college sports system.

Not that anyone cares what I do or don't watch, but I'm seriously considering boycotting the Big Midwest and SEC this year pending any further movement/announcments.

If the SEC or Big Ten were to break away, I'm fairly sure I would not watch much, if any, of their basketball. I might watch a little bit of the football because I am a bit of a UGA fan due to a lifetime of geographic proximity. I am sure I am not alone in feeling this way.

If they break away and Duke is in the outside looking in, I can assure you I won't be tuning in to the new leagues. If Duke does make the cut, I still might restrict my viewing to "the ACC".

You know who could be the big loser in all this? ESPN, CBS, ABC, and so on when they sign a 10-year contract at $1 bil per year (or something like that) to broadcast what they expect to be huge ratings-grabbing games that turn out to be merely "ok" when it comes to garnering TV ratings because many college sports fans don't care about those games at all.

This is so obvious to me (and the assessment of inevitability is so consistent and pervasive among sports media) that I feel like there is some kind of high-level misdirection going on here. Haven't worked out what the "secret" play is here but I'm beginning to suspect there is one (see the playoff expansion last year for a recent example).

[Dr. Maturin]

Sure, even today in the Big Ten you have Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska who are happy to satisfy this requirement in most years. The SEC is a little better at the bottom except for Vanderbilt, but you still have South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and the Mississippi schools with sub-.500 traditions (I'm sure their fans will take issue). The administrators at these schools are just fine with putting mediocre teams on the field while cashing large checks. Their fans are accustomed to the mediocrity.

Kentucky, South Carolina, Northwestern, and Ole Miss have all had multiple 10-win seasons in the last decade. Nebraska, while no longer a power, won at least 9 games in 5 of their first 6 years in the B1G. I don't think those schools are keen to accept bottom-feeder status. The point is, in a SuperLeague, there are fewer easy wins to go around. In 2021, 13 of 14 SEC teams and 9 of 14 B1G teams qualified for a bowl game. A SuperLeague would require a recalibration of what constitutes success, and how that success is sold to the fans.

[budwom]

Kentucky, South Carolina, Northwestern, and Ole Miss have all had multiple 10-win seasons in the last decade. Nebraska, while no longer a power, won at least 9 games in 5 of their first 6 years in the B1G. I don't think those schools are keen to accept bottom-feeder status. The point is, in a SuperLeague, there are fewer easy wins to go around. In 2021, 13 of 14 SEC teams and 9 of 14 B1G teams qualified for a bowl game. A SuperLeague would require a recalibration of what constitutes success, and how that success is sold to the fans.

I strongly suspect that Nina King's recent efforts on behalf of football have been, among other things, to make Duke more attractive to prospective suitors. We aren't, in the overall scheme of things, the chopped liver that some make us out to be with regard to being invited into a new league, nor are we a slam dunk to get an invitation. We have a brand, we have value, but these are perilous times.

Just read about some guy in the Sports Business Journal (whatever that may be) who insists that multiple ACC team are already doing the math on circumventing the Grant of Rights...

[SoCalDukeFan]

I have a friend who was a lifelong and passionate Washington Redskins fan. He felt that Daniel Snyder ruined the team and stopped caring or following them. He describes giving them up as "liberating."

I wonder how many who now follow college sports will be turned off by all thins and will give it up. They may find that there are many more things to do on a Saturday afternoon that are more rewarding than watching two college football games on TV.

Lets say the BIG and the SEC emerge as the two super conferences in college football with massive TV contracts that lets them hire the best coaches and with NIL the best players. Will the fans of the schools left out even care about what goes on at those conferences.

SoCal

[Kedsy]

Kentucky, South Carolina, Northwestern, and Ole Miss have all had multiple 10-win seasons in the last decade. Nebraska, while no longer a power, won at least 9 games in 5 of their first 6 years in the B1G. I don't think those schools are keen to accept bottom-feeder status. The point is, in a SuperLeague, there are fewer easy wins to go around. In 2021, 13 of 14 SEC teams and 9 of 14 B1G teams qualified for a bowl game. A SuperLeague would require a recalibration of what constitutes success, and how that success is sold to the fans.

How does the calculus change if the superleague is 64 teams instead of 30 or 40?

(Easier to run a basketball tournament that way, as well.)

[Acymetric]

How does the calculus change if the superleague is 64 teams instead of 30 or 40?

(Easier to run a basketball tournament that way, as well.)

In that case it seems like 4 conferences would be better than two, both for organization purposes and to continue making use of powerful, established brands (existing conferences). Does 2 32 team conferences really make sense?

Everyone is defecting but I think the conferences working together would yield results that are more lucrative and sustainable.

[arnie]

I have a friend who was a lifelong and passionate Washington Redskins fan. He felt that Daniel Snyder ruined the team and stopped caring or following them. He describes giving them up as "liberating."

I wonder how many who now follow college sports will be turned off by all thins and will give it up. They may find that there are many more things to do on a Saturday afternoon that are more rewarding than watching two college football games on TV.

Lets say the BIG and the SEC emerge as the two super conferences in college football with massive TV contracts that lets them hire the best coaches and with NIL the best players. Will the fans of the schools left out even care about what goes on at those conferences.

SoCal

I am one of those previous Skins fans liberated by Snyder and think your point is valid. If UNCheat is only NC school in either power conference, I don’t see State, Duke, ECU, WF, App fans watching the cheats play.

The other schools will pull for their teams (assuming a lesser league exists) and the power conference tv ratings in the 9th largest state are disappointing.

[LasVegas]

Lets say the BIG and the SEC emerge as the two super conferences in college football with massive TV contracts that lets them hire the best coaches and with NIL the best players. Will the fans of the schools left out even care about what goes on at those conferences.

SoCal

You would lose some fans of the game and eyeballs but I would assume you would also gain fans as well. Would my 5 year old son become a fan of one of the 40 teams he sees in prime time on tv? I would say for sure yes.

[johnb]

And I would add this -- if the SEC and Big Ten break away and turn dozens of previously high-powered programs into afterthoughts, how excited are fans of those programs going to be about watching the games played by the folks who just ruined their college sports relevance? If you are a die-hard Va Tech or NC State or Miami fan and your team is left on the outside looking in, are you really going to make those big games between those hated Big Ten and SEC clubs appointment viewing? There is an potential unintended consequence here that could really impact the TV rating bottom lines where dozens of fan bases decide to boycott the schools/conferences that ruined what had been a reasonably stable college sports system.

I would add one more thing -- if I wanted to watch the absolutely best basketball competition outside of the NBA, I would not watch college basketball or March Madness, I would watch the G-League (don't kid yourself, even a bad G-League team would wax the floor with Duke or Gonzaga). I watch the NCAA because all these teams are related in some way to a program about which I have a deep connection. If the SEC or Big Ten were to break away, I'm fairly sure I would not watch much, if any, of their basketball. I might watch a little bit of the football because I am a bit of a UGA fan due to a lifetime of geographic proximity. I am sure I am not alone in feeling this way.

You know who could be the big loser in all this? ESPN, CBS, ABC, and so on when they sign a 10-year contract at $1 bil per year (or something like that) to broadcast what they expect to be huge ratings-grabbing games that turn out to be merely "ok" when it comes to garnering TV ratings because many college sports fans don't care about those games at all.

I agree and would add that while institutional decisions are often motivated by the bottom line, most of us have motivations that are not so clear cut. For example, few of us would move 500 miles away, next month, for a 15% raise and a parallel job. Or flip our home based on an anticipated 15% profit. Similarly, most of us did not single mindedly assess our talents and available options and then shrewdly choose a career to maximize earnings over the ensuing decades. Some people are more likely to choose paths that way (finance people come to mind, as do people who end up running universities as board members or presidents). They assume money and power are everything. Most of us do not live our lives with such a singular focus.

Unlike people, institutions do have one primary focus: to maintain themselves. That's true for the American Medical Association, for example, which issues statements on many issues but the central goal? the propagation of the interests of physicians. It's simply wrong to think that the AMA's primary focus is on patients, hospitals, the economy, or overall public health.

Institutions are a bit like evolution; the central goal is survival and propagation, not happiness. And for most big institutions, survival is about accruing money and power, complicated only by the people pulling the levers (who also want to accrue their own personal money and power) and the larger population that trusts these institutions and people to do the right thing (and while largely powerless in the decisions, this broader population does provide the money and power).

Even individual leaders who tend to think more broadly/wisely become enveloped in a group process that mandates this focus; if they don't they are rendered tangential and unemployed. For example, I haven't read one realignment plan from universities that focuses on providing a more enriching experience for the players or the fans of a particular institution, much less the overall viewing public. Journalists and fans cook up all sorts of plans, but come to think of it, I don't think I've read a single coherent realignment plan from the institutions, and even supposed agreements and contracts are quickly proven to be incomplete/dishonest/breakable.

Enormous public and governmental support has gone into these institutions and their sports programs. The institutions assume this support will persist, at least partly because of the power of their alums, and maybe it will. Nevertheless, when schools like Texas, Texas A&M, and UCLA gather up a century of support and walk away from other universities in their state system as well as the broader base of fans, based purely on their expectations of financial gain, they shouldn't be surprised if they eventually meet with unintended consequences.

[Dr. Maturin]

How does the calculus change if the superleague is 64 teams instead of 30 or 40?

(Easier to run a basketball tournament that way, as well.)

It's hard to say, as so much of this is speculation. But if the future organization is one with 64 teams, that might not look too much different than the current Power 5. In such a circumstance, the ACC(or something quite like it) still exists.