Conference Realignment: What Next?

[gtmoBlue]

Because there's no upside to adding hoops only. There is no additional revenue for us nor the ACC, just more mouths to feed.

It's not 'markets' anymore...just money. Football brings in 80% of revenues for the FFive. There is no value added in the ACC
bringing in 11 additional basketball schools.

Let's say it happens:

The ACC adds UConn, Nova, Gtwn, and StJ. Four more mouths to feed. They move to 20 teams (incls ND). The conference gets 4
new members for the price of 1. Do they pay out the $30 mill? No, they pay out $7 mill to the newbies. In doing so that lessens the
tv revenues of the existing 16 by $2Mill/year. The existing schools aren't happy with a reduction in pay. Now, they could shitcan
WF or GT and pay the newbies with that share of the pot, but it's not likely they would cut a current member.

The real deal is whether ESPN will sweeten the pot for the ACC with such a move? Probably not. Basketball, in and of itself, is not
value additive. The BE teams (like Kansas) bring nothing to the table in terms of football and increased TV revenues. Yes, there is
pocket appeal in so-called "marquis games' in basketball, but even they are not neeedle-movers in the overall scheme of things.

[Novachap]

If there was ever any doubt, kind of thinking UCONN made the right call given what looks like is going to happen to the AAC. IF they lose the 3 teams being discussed, it will severely impact them in terms of any kind of relevance.

[kayako]

Lots of possible scenarios if B12 takes BYU and Houston, UCF, and Cinci. Will the AAC be able to backfill without some of its remaining members revolting? Will schools like Temple, Memphis, and Navy pull a UCONN? How about a nationwide football only conference between the best of remaining schools? As I've said earlier in the thread, the P6 campaign is over.

[Edrick]

it doesnt matter. after this, the aac is really no different than conference usa or the sun belt. it has no hope of ever being relevant.

you just hate to see it

[ArmyVet]

Lots of possible scenarios if B12 takes BYU and Houston, UCF, and Cinci. Will the AAC be able to backfill without some of its remaining members revolting? Will schools like Temple, Memphis, and Navy pull a UCONN? How about a nationwide football only conference between the best of remaining schools? As I've said earlier in the thread, the P6 campaign is over.

Would BYU be joining for football only?

[Violet Ram]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Also, full disclosure, I'm a VCU fan but I'm not here to rep or push my school. I'm curious about what it means for a school to add value and the posts like the two below:

What about going super duper big by adding gonzaga, wichita, saint louis, dayton and vcu?

Gonzaga is the only team that'd raise our profile and per school payout. The other 4 would help in the short-term to get an extra couple bids per year, but long-term wouldn't be beneficial imo. The less bloat in our league, the better.

The biggest question to ask for any expansion team is whether they'd instantly become one of the best brands within the conference and thus raise our payouts. UConn did that. Gonzaga or Kansas would do that. Everyone else? Mid-tier at best. Wait for a team to dominate the A10 or AAC (basketball first schools like Wichita), then wait 5 more years, THEN consider inviting them.

No argument that Gonzaga is heads-and-shoulders the best basketball option (in terms of pedigree and value). But why do you think Gonzaga is the only team that could increase the league's value? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but the two predominant sources of revenue for the Big East is the TV payout and NCAA units.

In regards to TV payout, it's important to consider what the Big East's contract represents. Not to pick on DePaul, but I doubt Fox values all of DePaul's games as much as Villanova's. For the sake of argument, wouldn't a school only have to add more value than the median Big East school to increase the TV contract per school payout? The value of the the league's contract is tied to how many eyeballs a team can attract. Yes, being a consistently dominant team like Gonzaga adds public interest and thus eyeballs, but so does having large and passionate fanbases. Texas wouldn't be going to the SEC if it was based on success. I haven't found robust data on regular season games, but for example, the A10's championship has consistently drawn more viewers than the Big East championship but for 2018. From looking at some random weeks on showbuzzdaily, it appears that the top A10 teams draw about the same as BE games (again, not scientific because it's hard to find and cull more data). Having games on FS1 may hurt the Big East's viewership numbers, but it seems like good schools would bring additional viewers to FS1. If anyone has more robust TV data and wouldn't mind sharing, I'm very interested (and one of the primary reasons I signed-up to post).

In terms of NCAA units, I feel like adding good schools--but below Gonzaga quality--would still add considerable amount of units to the conference. What's important for maximizing a conference's bids isn't who is at the top of the conference standings, but rather, how well did the conference perform in OOC. Adding schools that go out and consistently perform well in OOC helps raise the conference's NET. It also means there's more good teams to absorb losses in conference, thus creatings more teams with good profiles which leads to more bids. And one of the added bonuses of more teams in the NCAA is that a conference may see it's teams bumped into easier matchups as to avoid putting two teams from the same conference in the same regional games.

To be frank, I think the biggest difference between the A10 and the Big East isn't the top of the league, but rather the bottom of the league. Beating a down Butler carries significantly more cache than playing Fordham or La Salle. Even if the Big East added Dayton, SLU, or anyone else a and they consistently finished near the bottom of the league, as long as they went out and performed well in OOC, the conference would be gaining NCAA bids.

Because there's no upside to adding hoops only. There is no additional revenue for us nor the ACC, just more mouths to feed.

It's not 'markets' anymore...just money. Football brings in 80% of revenues for the FFive. There is no value added in the ACC
bringing in 11 additional basketball schools.

Let's say it happens:

The ACC adds UConn, Nova, Gtwn, and StJ. Four more mouths to feed. They move to 20 teams (incls ND). The conference gets 4
new members for the price of 1. Do they pay out the $30 mill? No, they pay out $7 mill to the newbies. In doing so that lessens the
tv revenues of the existing 16 by $2Mill/year. The existing schools aren't happy with a reduction in pay. Now, they could shitcan
WF or GT and pay the newbies with that share of the pot, but it's not likely they would cut a current member.

The real deal is whether ESPN will sweeten the pot for the ACC with such a move? Probably not. Basketball, in and of itself, is not
value additive. The BE teams (like Kansas) bring nothing to the table in terms of football and increased TV revenues. Yes, there is
pocket appeal in so-called "marquis games' in basketball, but even they are not neeedle-movers in the overall scheme of things.

If there's no value added by having Big East school's join the ACC, are you saying that the Big East schools have no value, and therefore the next Big East contract will reduce the payout significantly? I don't think this is true, but it seems weird that you think the best of the Big East joining the ACC wouldn't increase the total ACC contract.

[kayako]

Would BYU be joining for football only?

I had previously thought that BYU as football only made sense due to geography and the sunday issue, but it sounds like they are identified as the top all-sports target...

https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big-12-conference-expansion-byu-cincinnati-houston-ucf-could-receive-league-invite-this-month?utm_source=article&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=brettmcmurphy

[kayako]

it doesnt matter. after this, the aac is really no different than conference usa or the sun belt. it has no hope of ever being relevant.

you just hate to see it

The AAC will get severely weakened if the rumors flying everywhere are true, for both basketball and football. I think the problem for them is that when it's time to backfill, they have to choose between football and basketball. The best basketball additions don't play football, and the best football additions are pretty bad basketball programs. Of course they'll pick football before basketball... and I can totally see Memphis and especially Temple trying to leave.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Moving forward, there remains the Power Conferences in college basketball - the ACC, B1G, Big East, Big 12, PAC and SEC - followed by everyone else (high-major conferences, mid-major conferences and low-major conferences). The AAC will have become absolutely decimated in the past 18 months basketball-wise, losing UConn, Cincinnati, Houston and, to a much lesser extent, UCF. While Memphis remains, along with Wichita State and SMU, the historical bottom of the league (Tulane, ECU and USF - which I have repeatedly made note over the years is what had always held back the AAC as being viewed as a power basketball conference, along with the lack of postseason success) not only remains but now becomes an even larger part of this league moving forward. I do not foresee any realistic path for the AAC to poach a member from the A10, as the A10 has more depth, conference continuity, geography and like-mindedness to prevent any member from seriously considering a jump. Similarly, the AAC will be unable to poach anyone from the MWC, as the MWC might very well now have both the football depth and basketball depth to have jumped the AAC in terms of prestige and value. Just like from 2010-2012, the AAC will need to look to C-USA for inevitable call-ups. Unfortunately for the conference, the league simply does not have any replacements that can offer the value lost from UConn, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF, in football or basketball.

I would be absolutely shocked if the AAC goes beyond ten members, especially since they are down to eight full members right now (USF, Memphis, SMU, Temple, Tulane, ECU, Tulsa and Navy/Wichita State) and going beyond ten dilutes what little value remains. While I don't think any AAC members end up going down the UConn route, I think a few members will at least strongly consider it. I could see Temple look to the A10 and become an FBS Independent, but I don't think Temple will look to stunt the growth they have accumulated in football these past few years. Wichita State, additionally, could look to the MWC, and possibly be paired with Gonzaga, to help strengthen their basketball lineup. Navy could very well look to end its football-only membership in the AAC, especially if Houston is not replaced with Rice (they desire at least one game in Texas every year), and other than SMU, there really isn't any member that Navy needs to play annually. USF, Memphis, Tulane, ECU and Tulsa are pretty much tied together at the hip right now, and would anticipate their first call would be to UAB. After that, expansion could go any number of ways for who the second member could be (Marshall, Old Dominion, Western Kentucky, Liberty, etc.). ESPN will dramatically reduce the payouts of the remaining members, and those left behind will fall even further behind in this continuing separation within D1.

Unfortunately for the Big East, there really isn't anyone in the AAC we look to poach. Temple will never be seriously considered as long as Villanova remains, and Memphis and Wichita State, for many reasons, will never be strongly considered either. Other than that, there really isn't much else to pursue. I am hopeful the Big East continues the Battle with the Big 12, as it very much appears to remain a very strong and competitive basketball conference.

[butlerguy03]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Also, full disclosure, I'm a VCU fan but I'm not here to rep or push my school. I'm curious about what it means for a school to add value and the posts like the two below:

What about going super duper big by adding gonzaga, wichita, saint louis, dayton and vcu?

Gonzaga is the only team that'd raise our profile and per school payout. The other 4 would help in the short-term to get an extra couple bids per year, but long-term wouldn't be beneficial imo. The less bloat in our league, the better.

The biggest question to ask for any expansion team is whether they'd instantly become one of the best brands within the conference and thus raise our payouts. UConn did that. Gonzaga or Kansas would do that. Everyone else? Mid-tier at best. Wait for a team to dominate the A10 or AAC (basketball first schools like Wichita), then wait 5 more years, THEN consider inviting them.

No argument that Gonzaga is heads-and-shoulders the best basketball option (in terms of pedigree and value). But why do you think Gonzaga is the only team that could increase the league's value? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but the two predominant sources of revenue for the Big East is the TV payout and NCAA units.

In regards to TV payout, it's important to consider what the Big East's contract represents. Not to pick on DePaul, but I doubt Fox values all of DePaul's games as much as Villanova's. For the sake of argument, wouldn't a school only have to add more value than the median Big East school to increase the TV contract per school payout? The value of the the league's contract is tied to how many eyeballs a team can attract. Yes, being a consistently dominant team like Gonzaga adds public interest and thus eyeballs, but so does having large and passionate fanbases. Texas wouldn't be going to the SEC if it was based on success. I haven't found robust data on regular season games, but for example, the A10's championship has consistently drawn more viewers than the Big East championship but for 2018. From looking at some random weeks on showbuzzdaily, it appears that the top A10 teams draw about the same as BE games (again, not scientific because it's hard to find and cull more data). Having games on FS1 may hurt the Big East's viewership numbers, but it seems like good schools would bring additional viewers to FS1. If anyone has more robust TV data and wouldn't mind sharing, I'm very interested (and one of the primary reasons I signed-up to post).

In terms of NCAA units, I feel like adding good schools--but below Gonzaga quality--would still add considerable amount of units to the conference. What's important for maximizing a conference's bids isn't who is at the top of the conference standings, but rather, how well did the conference perform in OOC. Adding schools that go out and consistently perform well in OOC helps raise the conference's NET. It also means there's more good teams to absorb losses in conference, thus creatings more teams with good profiles which leads to more bids. And one of the added bonuses of more teams in the NCAA is that a conference may see it's teams bumped into easier matchups as to avoid putting two teams from the same conference in the same regional games.

To be frank, I think the biggest difference between the A10 and the Big East isn't the top of the league, but rather the bottom of the league. Beating a down Butler carries significantly more cache than playing Fordham or La Salle. Even if the Big East added Dayton, SLU, or anyone else a and they consistently finished near the bottom of the league, as long as they went out and performed well in OOC, the conference would be gaining NCAA bids.

Because there's no upside to adding hoops only. There is no additional revenue for us nor the ACC, just more mouths to feed.

It's not 'markets' anymore...just money. Football brings in 80% of revenues for the FFive. There is no value added in the ACC
bringing in 11 additional basketball schools.

Let's say it happens:

The ACC adds UConn, Nova, Gtwn, and StJ. Four more mouths to feed. They move to 20 teams (incls ND). The conference gets 4
new members for the price of 1. Do they pay out the $30 mill? No, they pay out $7 mill to the newbies. In doing so that lessens the
tv revenues of the existing 16 by $2Mill/year. The existing schools aren't happy with a reduction in pay. Now, they could shitcan
WF or GT and pay the newbies with that share of the pot, but it's not likely they would cut a current member.

The real deal is whether ESPN will sweeten the pot for the ACC with such a move? Probably not. Basketball, in and of itself, is not
value additive. The BE teams (like Kansas) bring nothing to the table in terms of football and increased TV revenues. Yes, there is
pocket appeal in so-called "marquis games' in basketball, but even they are not neeedle-movers in the overall scheme of things.

If there's no value added by having Big East school's join the ACC, are you saying that the Big East schools have no value, and therefore the next Big East contract will reduce the payout significantly? I don't think this is true, but it seems weird that you think the best of the Big East joining the ACC wouldn't increase the total ACC contract.

Didn't the A-10 formerly (or still does?) buy it's time on CBS for the championship game?