Conference Realignment: What Next?

[Omaha1]

Kind of feels like there is an undercurrent from the leagues to push the pause button on realignment following the allegations against ESPN. Maybe I’m reading too much into things, but it’s possible that things cool down for a while.

[Hall2012]

The SHU Rivals board got an exclusive interview with Val Ackerman recently and this topic was addressed. Now the interview was I think about a week before the Texas/Oklahoma news broke so that could change things, but her response was essentially "never say never but we're very happy with 11 and not looking to expand." She also suggested that the league was not looking to expand when UConn was added, but they were the one school the league was willing to make an exception for. The article's on the pay board so out of respect to the site and the writer I don't want to say anything more. It's a great read though if anyone wants to join, even for just a month.

[Xudash]

The SHU Rivals board got an exclusive interview with Val Ackerman recently and this topic was addressed. Now the interview was I think about a week before the Texas/Oklahoma news broke so that could change things, but her response was essentially "never say never but we're very happy with 11 and not looking to expand." She also suggested that the league was not looking to expand when UConn was added, but they were the one school the league was willing to make an exception for. The article's on the pay board so out of respect to the site and the writer I don't want to say anything more. It's a great read though if anyone wants to join, even for just a month.

Thanks for sharing that much. Simply reinforces the idea that we don’t have to do anything right now (regardless of the pre-announcement timing for the UT / OU news).

UCONN was a unique, mutually beneficial opportunity

[GreatDaneAttorney]

I think there's a strong possibility that many schools will prioritize basketball if they're not in a football power conference. Even though the ACC has a TV deal and network with ESPN, I do think the ACC needs to be aggressive or face falling far behind the SEC. There's even the possibility that the ACC collapses at some point. Between the Big XII and ACC, it's possible that some schools may become available for the Big East. Off the top of my head, Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, and Baylor.

I know, I know, how could a school like Baylor drop football after they built a new stadium and went to a NY6 bowl? Well, let me introduce you to our good friend UConn, who had made similar commitments to Rentschler Field and played in a Fiesta Bowl but still ended up going Indy after a few years languishing in a non-power conference.

Big East expansion could be 10 years out. In these next 10 years, the Big East needs to negotiate a strong TV deal, continue to land NCAA tourney bids, and it really needs another school step up and make a Final Four. Our conference should win 1 or more natties in the next 10 years. We need to excel in NIL deals. We need to provide a clear path to the NBA for our star athletes. And we need to attract and retain top coaches. All of these are critical for maintaining our de facto "P6" status quo.

[gtmoBlue]

I think there's a strong possibility that many schools will prioritize basketball if they're not in a football power conference. Even though the ACC has a TV deal and network with ESPN, I do think the ACC needs to be aggressive or face falling far behind the SEC. There's even the possibility that the ACC collapses at some point. Between the Big XII and ACC, it's possible that some schools may become available for the Big East. Off the top of my head, Wake Forest, Boston College, Pitt, and Baylor.

I know, I know, how could a school like Baylor drop football after they built a new stadium and went to a NY6 bowl? Well, let me introduce you to our good friend UConn, who had made similar commitments to Rentschler Field and played in a Fiesta Bowl but still ended up going Indy after a few years languishing in a non-power conference.

Big East expansion could be 10 years out. In these next 10 years, the Big East needs to negotiate a strong TV deal, continue to land NCAA tourney bids, and it really needs another school step up and make a Final Four. Our conference should win 1 or more natties in the next 10 years. We need to excel in NIL deals. We need to provide a clear path to the NBA for our star athletes. And we need to attract and retain top coaches. All of these are critical for maintaining our de facto "P6" status quo.

Excellent post on one of my fav topics. Thanks GreatDaneAttorney.

adding 2 cents...

The B1G has long coveted ACC schools. I would not be surprised if the old gameplan by former Commish Jim Delany is still in play.

Now the B1G may not be in a hurry, but they know the deal...gotta keep up in an Arms Race.

With Missouri gone to the SEC & KU worthless in football, looking west implies the Pac 12. A marriage fraught with problems. Yes, East & West divisions...heh, heh.
Where have I heard that phrase before? Hmmm.

It's best prospects remain looking to poach more teams from the ACC. Originally, the B1G was looking to gain UVA, UNC-cheat, and Duke. That is still the more promising
scenario this time around, although, 10-12 years later, Duke will likely be replaced by Notre Dame from the ACC. With another raid on the ACC, that makes 2 conferences
that will implode (joining the B12) - leaving the Football 3.

It is well known that the SEC still covets Clemson and FSU.
This round of realignment leaves ample leftovers in NC State, Duke, S'cuse, Pitt, WF, GT, possibly KU, Baylor, Iowa St, others. Life is grand!

B1G Wiki 2010–2014 Big Ten Conference realignment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%8 ... ealignment

In December 2012, another part of the Big Ten's rationale for its latest round of expansion was revealed by Barry Alvarez, athletic director of conference charter member Wisconsin. As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Alvarez told the school's athletics board,

Jim [Delany] felt that someday, if we didn’t have anyone else in that corridor [i.e., Northeast Corridor], someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league. That they would go into a league somewhere on the east coast. By doing that [adding Maryland and Rutgers], it keeps us in the northeast corridor.[17]

Still more light was shed on the situation in late May 2013, when comments made by Ohio State president Gordon Gee in a December 2012 talk to the university's athletic council were made public. Media attention focused on comments that were interpreted as slurs against Catholics and Notre Dame, plus digs at former Wisconsin football coach Bret Bielema, the Southeastern Conference, the University of Cincinnati, and Kentucky's two major state universities of Kentucky and Louisville.[18] The furor over Gee's comments soon led him to retire effective July 1, 2013.[19] However, his comments also included his takes on current and possible future Big Ten realignment:[18]

"I think we’re moving precipitously toward about three or four superconferences of about 16 to 20 teams. And the possibility of them bolting from the NCAA is not unlikely."
The addition of Maryland and Rutgers "gives us 40 to 50 million more viewers, makes the BTN [Big Ten Network] worth more money than God. I did say that. It’s a very powerful instrument for us."
"Very candidly, I think we made a mistake. Because [we] thought about adding Missouri and Kansas at the time. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm about that. I think we should have done that at the time. So we would have had Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas and then moved into that other area. I think, by the way, that that can still happen."
"If the ACC continues to struggle, and Florida State goes off to the SEC or something like that, and Clemson moves in a different direction, all of a sudden Virginia, Duke, and North Carolina — which are all very similar institutions to the Big Ten, there is a real possibility that we may end up having that kind of T which goes south. And I could see them joining us. And I could see them having a real interest in joining us."

[GumbyDamnit!]

Where there is smoke there is fire. And in the case of Clemson and Fl. St., it reminds me of when I was just a young GumbyDarnit!, and all the older kids were jumping off the freight tracks into the river. My buddy and I finally looked at each other and said, "well I guess we're going to jump." Of course those two will jump in. And the ACC will no longer be a P5 FB conference, just like the Big12. I guess we're down to P1 and P2a & P2b...in football at least.

We just have to keep doing our thing. The tourney will never change (IMO) because the lure of the Cinderella story is too great. To boot we've got 9 of the last 50 National Champions sitting in conference. The B1g has 6, the SEC has 7. So there's that...

[Xudash]

Where there is smoke there is fire. And in the case of Clemson and Fl. St., it reminds me of when I was just a young GumbyDarnit!, and all the older kids were jumping off the freight tracks into the river. My buddy and I finally looked at each other and said, "well I guess we're going to jump." Of course those two will jump in. And the ACC will no longer be a P5 FB conference, just like the Big12. I guess we're down to P1 and P2a & P2b...in football at least.

We just have to keep doing our thing. The tourney will never change (IMO) because the lure of the Cinderella story is too great. To boot we've got 9 of the last 50 National Champions sitting in conference. The B1g has 6, the SEC has 7. So there's that...

Gumby -- totally agree with you about the tourney. It's become what it is due to its inclusivity and the Cinderella story aspect of it, as you point out.

But my primary reason for responding is that I can't imagine you being a "freight tracks into the river" jumper. Not because you don't have courage, but rather because that doesn't sound like a Mainline'ish activity. Either way, I hope you landed in soft mud by the time you hit the bottom.

[DeltaV]

I think the ACC is too large to 'implode', short of a complete realignment of college football. They have what, 15 teams if you count Notre Dame? Even if they lose 5 or 6 teams, they could pick up WVU from the remains of the B12, maybe even take Kansas for their basketball, OK State, Iowa State for a travel partner, or one of the leftover Texas schools (Baylor did just win in basketball, and wasn't their football team relevant recently?). It's not the SEC, but who is these days, and you're probably relevant enough to maintain an argument for P4 status (even if the gap between 1-2 and 3-4 is quite large), especially if they keep enough basketball relevance. I mean, that conference wouldn't be much worse than the Pac12, would it?

Big 12, yes, losing their two key teams may knock them out. Plus, ESPN has a vested interest in keeping the ACC alive. If you completely realign, you'd maybe see Wake Forest or NC State shake loose, along with Syracuse, Pitt, BC, but theres still enough core there of athletics and academics to keep a relevant conference if they want it; might not even need to raid the AAC.

[gtmoBlue]

I think the ACC is too large to 'implode', short of a complete realignment of college football. They have what, 15 teams if you count Notre Dame? Even if they lose 5 or 6 teams, they could pick up WVU from the remains of the B12, maybe even take Kansas for their basketball, OK State, Iowa State for a travel partner, or one of the leftover Texas schools (Baylor did just win in basketball, and wasn't their football team relevant recently?). It's not the SEC, but who is these days, and you're probably relevant enough to maintain an argument for P4 status (even if the gap between 1-2 and 3-4 is quite large), especially if they keep enough basketball relevance. I mean, that conference wouldn't be much worse than the Pac12, would it?

Big 12, yes, losing their two key teams may knock them out. Plus, ESPN has a vested interest in keeping the ACC alive. If you completely realign, you'd maybe see Wake Forest or NC State shake loose, along with Syracuse, Pitt, BC, but theres still enough core there of athletics and academics to keep a relevant conference if they want it; might not even need to raid the AAC.

An article yesterday stated the B12 is worth half of what it was before the defection of OU/UT. Think the same with the ACC loss of N Carolina, ND, Virginia, Clemson, & Florida St. Could Duke alone hold up the fiscal ramparts? No. S'cuse, Pitt, NC State, WF, GT...none of these schools "move the needle" in football. We'd be left with the Big 3 (SEC, B1G, and PAC12). Welcome Duke, S 'Cuse & Pitt back to the BEast, maybe KU & Baylor too.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

Welcome Duke, S 'Cuse & Pitt back to the BEast, maybe KU & Baylor too.

From my extensive research on the topic, I have learned the following verifiable facts:

• It is very important to distinguish the difference between revenue and profit.

• With few exception, Power Five Conference Football programs make a profit.

• With few exception, Power Five Conference Athletic Departments make a loss.

• Power Five Conference Football programs subsidize the universities’ non-revenue sports.

• With few exception, the profit generated by Football is insufficient to cover the deficits (losses) incurred by non-revenue sports, which is why Power Five Conference Athletic Departments make a loss.

• Therefore, there is a very strong incentive for Power Five Conference universities to retain their football programs, and retain their memberships in Power Five Conferences.

Top 20 Most Profitable College Football Programs - AthleticsSholarships.net – 2021

The 20 most profitable college football programs made an eye-popping $925 million combined after expenses. The SEC is the leading conference on the field and on the balance sheet, as it has nine schools in the top 20. Of the remaining 11 most profitable programs, there are four from the Big Ten, three from Pac-12, two from the Big-12 and one from the ACC. Here’s the complete list:

1. Texas – $92 million
2. Tennessee – $70 million
3. LSU – $58 million
4. Michigan – $56 million
5. Notre Dame – $54 million
6. Georgia – $50 million
7. Ohio State – $50 million
8. Oklahoma – $48 million
9. Auburn – $47 million
10. Alabama – $46 million
11. Oregon – $40 million
12. Florida State – $39 million
13. Arkansas – $38 million
14. Washington – $38 million
15. Florida – $37 million
16. Texas A&M – $37 million
17. Penn State – $36 million
18. Michigan State – $32 million
19. USC – $29 million
20. South Carolina – $28 million

The Charts in the lengthy article below by Kristi Doshare well worth a look, and give a truer picture of the situation with real financial figures.

Does Football Fund Other Sports At College Level - Kristi Dosh, Attorney, Forbes - May 5, 2011

First, let me say that it is generally true that football, and sometimes men’s basketball, subsidizes a (sometimes large) portion of the expenses for other teams. It doesn’t matter if we’re looking at a team from Conference USA or the SEC. Accordingly, I pulled numbers for several of the top student fee recipients, both in terms of dollars and percentage, an SEC school, a Big Ten school and Cal-Berkeley because of their recent fundraising efforts to save five sports.

In the Charts that follow, you will see a breakdown of the revenue and expenses for football, men’s and women’s basketball and the catchall for the rest of the varsity sports, “Other Sports”. I’ve also indicated how men’s teams are represented in the “Other Sports” category (with all track and field-related teams being counted as one sport) and how many total participants.

So, no matter whether you’re Ohio University or Penn State, football and men’s basketball are generally the only profit producing sports. When profits from those two sports aren’t large enough to cover the other sports and other expenses like recruiting and coaches salaries, schools generally have to rely upon student fees and other types of direct institutional support.

Protecting the Weak Side: College Football Revenue Props Up Other Sports - Matthew Watkins March 17, 2016

If schools want a profitable department, there’s usually only one place to build it: the football field.

The Texas Tribune analyzed the annual NCAA financial reports of the eight public universities in the state that play in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the top level of college football. In the 2015 fiscal year, the athletic departments at those schools — the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, the University of Texas at El Paso, the University of Houston, the University of North Texas, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Texas State University — earned just less than $520 million from athletics. Nearly $300 million of that came from football. Men’s basketball, the next-highest earner, brought in $39 million.

Without football profits, managing a self-sustaining athletic department is nearly impossible. A successful football team can prop up an entire athletic department, and a struggling football team can cause a university to miss out on millions. It’s not unusual for the less popular sports, like women’s tennis, to see their expenses outpace revenues by more than 5,000 percent. At UTSA, for example, the women’s tennis team earned $1,507 in the 2015 fiscal year, while spending $275,012.

“I know there are people within any university saying we ought not to be spending money on football,” Texas A&M University System Chancellor John Sharp said. “But sports like football pay for themselves, and generate money for virtually everyone else.”

Football has been college sports’ golden goose since the 1800s Alex Kirshner, - BannerSociety - April 8, 2020

Football is the gravy train that feeds everything else in college sports. And football’s load has been heavy since the beginning.

From the late 1800s, football financed not just every other sport, but the growth of schools themselves.

In 1929, the Carnegie Foundation visited colleges nationwide and dropped a 383-page report that covered college sports’ growth before and after the turn of the century.

“Commercialism has made possible the erection of fine academic buildings and the increase of equipment from the profits of college athletics,” the report said, while noting how weird it was the players driving that growth were not officially compensated.

The report made clear that “athletics” really meant “football” when it broke down finances at dozens of schools for either 1926 or ‘27. In one year, Alabama made $150,000 in revenue on athletics, and $72,000 came from football ($60,000 of that from one Rose Bowl). Cal’s athletic revenue was $486,162, with football chipping in $457,016. Harvard’s athletic profit was $131,000, with football revenue coming in at $429,000.

“Football,” the Carnegie authors wrote, “carries the bulk of the monetary burden.”

As the 20th century rolled on, football only became more of a financial cornerstone.

In 1951, Michigan State football made a $264,000 profit. MSU’s men’s basketball team made $33,865. Every other sport lost money, and the athletic department as a whole lost $80,873, the Associated Press reported. The football profit would’ve been greater if the school hadn’t retired stadium bonds (used for a recent enlargement of the stadium) and re-sodded the field at a cost of nearly $9,000.

In 1974, the Atlanta Journal published financial figures for 15 Southern athletic departments. All of them profited on football, with LSU, Alabama, and Tennessee each clearing $1 million after expenses. All 15 lost money on non-football sports, with several finishing 1972-73 in the red overall. Tennessee posted $1.1 million in football profit and a $23,686 department-wide loss.

In 1984, the Supreme Court took control of TV rights away from the NCAA and let schools and conferences negotiate their own deals. The schools wanted to make their own deals for football broadcasts, specifically. With TV, football became even more of a meal ticket for entire athletic departments.

In 2018, LSU’s athletic department reported $145 million in revenue to the NCAA. Of that, LSU reported $87 million came from football. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. LSU also reported $39 million from media rights, the result of the SEC’s negotiations with ESPN and CBS. The athletic department only credited $12 million of that to football, even though anyone in college sports would tell you the vast majority of CBS’ interest in the SEC was football-based.

Football’s real contribution was well over $100 million of LSU’s $145 million in total athletic money. But even going by LSU’s accounting, football made $55 million in profit. Men’s basketball and baseball, together, added a little less than $1 million. Everything else lost money, but thanks to football, the department still made about $8 million.

The situation is similar at schools that don’t have blue-blood football teams. Take Kansas, probably the school with the widest gap between its men’s basketball team (consistently in the top five) and football team (one of FBS’ worst). In 2018, the hoops team brought in $16 million in ticket sales, compared to $4 million for football. But football had $34 million in total revenue, compared to $19 million for hoops, because Kansas was honest and credited most of its Big 12 media money to the football column.

The only schools where football isn’t financial king are small ones that don’t have big TV deals but do have another sport with tons of tradition. For example, in 2018, North Dakota’s not-great FCS football team posted $1.7 million in revenue, less than a men’s hockey team that sold $4.2 million in tickets and makes frequent postseason runs.

Ohio State Athletics Facing $60-70 Million Deficit For 2021 Fiscal Year - Dan Hope, Eleven Warriors - February 26, 2021

With the Big Ten’s decision not to allow fans at any sporting events this year due to COVID-19, a substantial deficit for the Ohio State athletic department was inevitable. Ticket sales made up nearly $66 million of Ohio State’s revenues for the 2020 fiscal year (which included the 2019 football season), and other streams of revenue have also been impacted by the year-long pandemic.