ACC: Hindsight is 20/20

Mar 1, 2023, 8:58 AM

When you look at conference expansion, until Oklahoma and Texas joined the SEC and USC and UCLA joined the B1G, the ACC had done what (at the times) always looked like the better job with conference expansion than anyone else. Going as far back as Georgia Tech joining in 1983 and winning the national championship in 1990. Florida State and Miami were two of the strongest programs in the country when they joined the conference - easily two of the top five. Virginia Tech played for a national championship in 1999 (losing to FSU) and joined the ACC in 2004. These were ALL good moves until the programs took downturns. (And while the history might not have been recent, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt all had good football history - I do think they've had a tough time in the conference because of geography.)

Anyhow, with the success of the Big Ten Network and the SEC Network, and the departure of Maryland (replaced by a Louisville team that was seeing unprecedented program highs on the gridiron) because of the revenue gap, there were serious existential conference concerns about the revenue and about potential team departures (remember all of those "Clemson and FSU to the Big-12" rumors? - what a disaster that would have been). We got a media deal because of GOR which solidified the ACC at #3 in conference revenue. We later got more money and the ACCN because of the GOR, because of Notre Dame, and because we extended the ESPN contract until 2035. Yes, we have been left behind on money, but it guaranteed the stability and survival of the conference. And while football may drive the revenue now, I don't think many of us would want to be in another conference for any of our other sports.

My point is that most of the finger-pointing now (even at John Swofford) is misguided, because we were making sensible decisions at the time (and Swofford was doing exactly what the member university presidents were asking him to do).

While the ACC is behind the SEC and B1G (but ahead of the Big-12, even with their new contract, and will surely stay ahead of the Pac-12). And while people at FSU and Clemson may complain about money, football facilities with fire poles and slides and bowling alleys would seem to be awash in money - we just need to be smart.

What do we need to do to at least close the revenue gap? The conference does need uneven revenue payouts, so that the programs that make the playoffs are rewarded for what they put in the program. We already do have that (to a degree) but the conference needs to incentivize success in the revenue sports.

Jim Phillips talks about increasing revenue streams for the conference and I'm really not sure (outside of 100% market saturation with ACCN) you do that. I just don't know.

Finally, and the conference has done the 100% correct thing here. By holding out on playoff expansion, we are guaranteeing that the playoff media deal will go out to competitive bid. This won't close the revenue gap to the SEC and the B1G, but it will close the relative revenue gap, as that $30 million or so disparity will be a smaller percentage of the total media value.

Then we just need to sit tight until 2030 or so, and see where conference realignment and new media deals take us. It will be a different world then - streaming might be the way most people consume sports at that point. (Which is why the rumored Pac-12 Apple TV connection will be interesting.) We aren't leaving the ACC. We aren't violating the GOR. We don't know that the SEC would even want us. And we darn well know that ESPN isn't going to pay us more to go to the SEC when they can pay us less to be a crown jewel in the ACC.

One last thing re: the SEC. Everyone acts like Greg Sankey is some evil genius - emphasis on genius. He may be evil - his participation on the playoff committee while holding inside information about SEC expansion should go in textbooks as egregiously unethical behavior. But this is coming back to bit him in the backside.

Sankey knew everyone would benefit from playoff expansion, but he wanted ESPN to get an under-market playoff deal, so more money would be available to the SEC when they renegotiated (with the addition of OU and Texas). That did not happen. ESPN will have to spend more for whatever playoff rights they likely split with other media partners. They will have less money left over for the SEC.

Point being, ESPN has already suggested that they may not be willing to pay more to the SEC with the addition of Oklahoma and Texas. I do think they will increase the payout a little, with an increased inventory of games (two new teams and the SEC going to a nine-game conference schedule increases the conference inventory by sixteen conference games - not sure how many slots ESPN has left to show those games). But I don't think ESPN will be increasing the per-team payout in the SEC with this move. Since the deals are signed and the SEC is locked in with their exclusive media partner, they have absolutely no leverage (does that remind you of... the ACC? it should!).

Additionally, while the money looks great today, the SEC's long-term deal with ESPN is already behind the B1G and the B1G will renew their deal before the SEC's is up. The SEC put all their eggs in the ESPN, just like the ACC, and that deal will look worse with each passing year. It might be pretty good - and it will always be pretty good - but they will drop further and further behind the B1G.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

and competitive programs, along with attractive media markets - where the league and its leadership screwed up was how we scheduled it all from there.

The amorphous named Atlantic and Coastal divisions didn't make any sense to an outsider for starters. It forced too many annual non-traction games (Clem vs BC, Syr, Wake every single season), strangling off more interesting competition on a more regular basis during the regular season, all for the end goal of trying to get a big name match-up for one single game in December. Dreams of a home run FSU vs Miami for the league title game drove that boat in a way.

Since 2005, we've offered 13 weeks of watered down Saturdays to the casual sports fan, and forced every program to load up their schedules annually with games that no one on either side really cared a whole ton about. Finally that's going away starting in 2023, but the damage has already been done over so many years of this.

The only path forward that I see for the ACC's football heavy programs to start bridging the growing revenue gap in earnest, at this point, is to recreate divisions with the footballers in one and the coat tailers in another. This would open the door for ESPN to up its rights fees, as we would be able to offer a significant bump in nationally-relevant marketable games more often during the seasons. Keep the Notre Dame deal in place, but have them schedule 3-4 games vs the upper division annually and only 1-2 vs the other.

Further, we could expand to 9 league games, where the lower division team would have a 5th league road game every season at an upper division venue. This would also raise the media value some with the extra inventory, while allowing the premier programs to maintain a robust Power 5 OOC slate as they wouldn't have to account for one less home game. The football vested schools have larger venues with larger fan support - why not leverage that for everyone's benefit.

Lastly, this would allow the ACC to expand some more, with little room at the top (maybe a West Va) but a few spots open in the lower division, which could offer a few geographically attractive G5 programs an in for football and other sports without diluting payouts for any others.

The make-up of the ACC isn't bad at all, for football and all other sports. The problem is that we have handcuffed ourselves, willingly, by squelching off too many attractive games every season in hopes of a single big bang at season's end.

ACC: Hindsight is 20/20

Re: ACC: Hindsight is 20/20

There was nothing sensible about 2036z***

Re: There was nothing sensible about 2036z***

I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: I agree with you on who we brought in being marketable

Re: ACC: Hindsight is 20/20

TigerBoard POTD