There's a great likelihood that I'm exposing several logical fallacies here and/ or my facts are mixed up, but follow me:

- If as expected, a 14 team ACC gets raided by the BIG/SEC for four teams, leaving them with 10, AND as expected;

- The ultimate goal is to have 4 x 16 team conferences, AND as expected;

- The 10 team Big XII loses four teams to the PAC-12 at the expiration of the Grant of Rights;

Why then wouldn't it be prudent for the 10-team ACC to carry on and wait to absorb the 6 remaining Big XII members? I suppose the obvious answer is that expansion rarely happens as expected. It interrupts the script of the ACC backfilling with Big East candidates.

This probably runs contrary to the hopes of Florida St., Clemson, UConn and Cincinnati (and maybe USF, and the wishes of some well-known posters around here), but is it realistic that a conference similar to this might emerge eventually:

ACC East:

Florida State
Clemson
Boston College
Miami
Duke
Syracuse
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest

ACC West:

Kansas State
Baylor
TCU
West Virginia
Kansas
Iowa State
Louisville
Pittsburgh

can we at least call it the big xii? not many teams are close to the coast...

If push comes to shove, I would expect the Texas Conference -- oops, I mean the Big 12 -- to absorb six ACC schools (or possibly five ACC schools plus BYU), not the other way around.

I don't and have never believed there is any sort of secret mandate to get to 4x16. That would mean the leagues would have to work together, 1 of them basically agree to go away, and to try to balance things out to make the numbers work. That's never happening. Also the PAC is not going to 12 without Texas and company. Not to mention they don't even really need to get to 4x16 to break away if they decide to.

(02-15-2013 01:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If push comes to shove, I would expect the Texas Conference -- oops, I mean the Big 12 -- to absorb six ACC schools (or possibly five ACC schools plus BYU), not the other way around.

But that assumes Texas is still around. And that means there is no PAC 16. If there is no PAC 16, then all of this is moot.

(02-15-2013 01:40 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 01:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  If push comes to shove, I would expect the Texas Conference -- oops, I mean the Big 12 -- to absorb six ACC schools (or possibly five ACC schools plus BYU), not the other way around.

But that assumes Texas is still around. And that means there is no PAC 16. If there is no PAC 16, then all of this is moot.

I expect the Pac 12 to stay at 12. Texas won't move to a conference where it's not the top dog; it already had that opportunity and declined. And the Pac 12 is unlikely to settle for additions from the MWC. If there's a breakaway, I doubt it will be a true 4x16; more likely a 1x12 (Pac 12) plus 2x16 (Big 12, SEC) plus 1x18 (Big 10) or something similar.

PAC16; ACC; SEC; B1G all with 16 teams.

(02-15-2013 02:04 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  PAC16; ACC; SEC; B1G all with 16 teams.

That's the only way you could actually get there reasonably, but it would still mean some conference is going to have to add teams they don't actually want to add to get there. Obviously all the leagues want to add Texas and Oklahoma out of the B12, but who wants KSU, ISU, TCU, Baylor, and whatever others that Texas doesn't bring along?

I've always wondered about the B12 inviting only teams that increase the tv payout. I wonder this because did TCU really increase it? For me, TCU doesn't seem very valuable at all and i would have to say BYU, Boise, Cincy, Uconn, UCF, USF, memphis, temple are all more valuable schools to have. To me if this happend, i would expect UC, Uconn, USF, UCF and maybe even memphis or temple to be in their over a team like TCU and possibly even Iowa State.

(02-15-2013 02:14 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  I've always wondered about the B12 inviting only teams that increase the tv payout. I wonder this because did TCU really increase that because to me TCU doesn't seem very valuable at all. To me if this happend i would expect UC, Uconn, and maybe even memphis or temple to be in their first over a team like TCU and possibly even Iowa State.

The Big 12 took TCU because they were immediately available, and the conference had to get back to at least ten in order to maintain its inventory of games. And the networks are basically overpaying in order to block the PAC 16.

The 10 team Big XII loses four teams to the PAC-12 at the expiration of the Grant of Rights

Do you really see the ACC surviving with no GOR and the lowest conference payout (by a substantial margin) for 12 years?!?

(02-15-2013 02:21 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  The 10 team Big XII loses four teams to the PAC-12 at the expiration of the Grant of Rights

Do you really see the ACC surviving with no GOR and the lowest conference payout (by a substantial margin) for 12 years?!?

$19.7M vs a projected $19.5M, is that substantial to you?

(02-15-2013 02:27 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:21 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  The 10 team Big XII loses four teams to the PAC-12 at the expiration of the Grant of Rights

Do you really see the ACC surviving with no GOR and the lowest conference payout (by a substantial margin) for 12 years?!?

$19.7M vs a projected $19.5M, is that substantial to you?

The ACC's worry is not the Big 12. The worry is a B1G raid that leaves the ACC weak enough to be raided by the Big 12 and SEC. At any rate, I really get the feeling that Kansas is on the Big 12 radar, so the Big 12 won't go unscathed either. Two enemies will have to merge to combat an even more powerful foe.

tv isn't the only thing.... I mean in 6-8 of the 12 years, ACC gets 12.5 million less than Big 12 for the Sugar vs Orange Bowl.

Also-
Big 12- 40 million divided by 10- 4 million per team
ACC- 27 million divided by 14- less than 2 million per team

other stuff adds up as well. I mean, if both conferences get 50 million for the BCS general payout- Big 12 5 million, ACC 3.5 million. So just those 2 things- Big 12 9 million per team, ACC 5.5 million per team. That's a huge difference just there.

Now both conferences sell naming rights to the basketball conference tourney. oh wait, ACC gave that right away to ESPN. On the other hand, Big Ten sells for 25 million a year. Another 2.5 million for Big 12.

so right there in other stuff
big 12 11.5 million
ACC 7.5 million

that starts to add up when it's happening each year.

(02-15-2013 02:17 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:14 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  I've always wondered about the B12 inviting only teams that increase the tv payout. I wonder this because did TCU really increase that because to me TCU doesn't seem very valuable at all. To me if this happend i would expect UC, Uconn, and maybe even memphis or temple to be in their first over a team like TCU and possibly even Iowa State.

The Big 12 took TCU because they were immediately available, and the conference had to get back to at least ten in order to maintain its inventory of games. And the networks are basically overpaying in order to block the PAC 16.

No, they took TCU because the non-Texas schools wanted to keep 2 Texas games each year and because they have the best record of any school not in the Big 5 and one of the top 5 records of the last decade, so they have value to TV.

(02-15-2013 02:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  tv isn't the only thing.... I mean in 6-8 of the 12 years, ACC gets 12.5 million less than Big 12 for the Sugar vs Orange Bowl.

Also-
Big 12- 40 million divided by 10- 4 million per team
ACC- 27 million divided by 14- less than 2 million per team

other stuff adds up as well. I mean, if both conferences get 50 million for the BCS general payout- Big 12 5 million, ACC 3.5 million. So just those 2 things- Big 12 9 million per team, ACC 5.5 million per team. That's a huge difference just there.

Now both conferences sell naming rights to the basketball conference tourney. oh wait, ACC gave that right away to ESPN. On the other hand, Big Ten sells for 25 million a year. Another 2.5 million for Big 12.

so right there in other stuff
big 12 11.5 million
ACC 7.5 million

that starts to add up when it's happening each year.

So adding team won't make the per team revenue for all those other things go down?

(02-15-2013 02:27 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:21 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  The 10 team Big XII loses four teams to the PAC-12 at the expiration of the Grant of Rights

Do you really see the ACC surviving with no GOR and the lowest conference payout (by a substantial margin) for 12 years?!?

$19.7M vs a projected $19.5M, is that substantial to you?

The shared league television contract isn't the only revenue stream. Also the Big 12 is likely a little farther ahead on that if you consider those are average values and the ACC's deal runs longer.

I used the years on each, the average payout, and a growth rate of 3% annually and set both leagues at 19mm for simplicity sake.

Average payout on the remaining years in the Big 12 contract between the 2 deals:
B12: 19
ACC: 18.06 (2013 uses the 17.1 avg deal bc ND hasn't joined. 2014-2024 uses 19 avg deal)

This does not account for adding a title game or the Big 12 tv deal getting a bump for the right schools.

Other replies got into naming rights for league tourneys, SugarVSOrange, etc.

Now tier 3 tv rights aren't huge but for a larger school they should be able to garner at least 1mm for a bundle of all those games. This is an extreme lowball estimate for a large school.

So the right schools would make more money here but right now it isn't enough to justify a move. However if the B1G strikes the ACC I do think schools would be likely to move.

(02-15-2013 03:05 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  tv isn't the only thing.... I mean in 6-8 of the 12 years, ACC gets 12.5 million less than Big 12 for the Sugar vs Orange Bowl.

Also-
Big 12- 40 million divided by 10- 4 million per team
ACC- 27 million divided by 14- less than 2 million per team

other stuff adds up as well. I mean, if both conferences get 50 million for the BCS general payout- Big 12 5 million, ACC 3.5 million. So just those 2 things- Big 12 9 million per team, ACC 5.5 million per team. That's a huge difference just there.

Now both conferences sell naming rights to the basketball conference tourney. oh wait, ACC gave that right away to ESPN. On the other hand, Big Ten sells for 25 million a year. Another 2.5 million for Big 12.

so right there in other stuff
big 12 11.5 million
ACC 7.5 million

that starts to add up when it's happening each year.

So adding team won't make the per team revenue for all those other things go down?

They'd split it into an extra share which reduces per school revenue from these sources but likely would increase the TV deal and add a payout for a title game.

(02-15-2013 03:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:17 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 02:14 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  I've always wondered about the B12 inviting only teams that increase the tv payout. I wonder this because did TCU really increase that because to me TCU doesn't seem very valuable at all. To me if this happend i would expect UC, Uconn, and maybe even memphis or temple to be in their first over a team like TCU and possibly even Iowa State.

The Big 12 took TCU because they were immediately available, and the conference had to get back to at least ten in order to maintain its inventory of games. And the networks are basically overpaying in order to block the PAC 16.

No, they took TCU because the non-Texas schools wanted to keep 2 Texas games each year and because they have the best record of any school not in the Big 5 and one of the top 5 records of the last decade, so they have value to TV.

The part about games in Texas is correct. But lets see how much TV value they add after a few more 7-6 seasons. Any team ranked in the Top 10 is going to do well on TV.

(02-15-2013 01:14 PM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  There's a great likelihood that I'm exposing several logical fallacies here and/ or my facts are mixed up, but follow me:

- If as expected, a 14 team ACC gets raided by the BIG/SEC for four teams, leaving them with 10, AND as expected;

- The ultimate goal is to have 4 x 16 team conferences, AND as expected;

- The 10 team Big XII loses four teams to the PAC-12 at the expiration of the Grant of Rights;

Why then wouldn't it be prudent for the 10-team ACC to carry on and wait to absorb the 6 remaining Big XII members?

------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be along wait.....the GOR is for 13 years. Since the ACC has no GOR, the prudent thing would be for the Remaining Big12 schools to absorb the ACC schools.