(02-18-2022 05:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Depends what you mean by worried.
10 years ago with the BTN on the upswing, it was pretty direct and clear that, say, a UNC/UVA expansion would make a lot more money for the Big Ten.
We're now getting to heights, though, where we may be getting to a point of diminishing returns with Big Ten expansion unless it involves Notre Dame. (I think we're already there with the SEC and why I don't buy these Armageddon superconference scenarios where they keep adding more schools. There's no single expansion that's more valuable than the one they just did with Texas and Oklahoma.) I always like to remind people that part of the purpose of an actual conference (as opposed to a TV rights arrangement) is to have teams that actually play each other regularly. That still works in a 16-team conference with a pod system and you're playing 9 conference games (as the SEC appears to be heading). As sexy as it sounds to have a 24-team Big Ten or SEC that has USC, Florida State, Miami, etc., that's really just a TV rights/scheduling arrangement since it's impossible for all of those teams to actually play each other any more than if they were simply non-conference opponents.
So, I'm a future Big Ten expansion skeptic on that front (which is saying something because the whole reason why I write about conference realignment was based on Big Ten expansion).
That being said, individual ACC schools should be quite worried that they're 8 figures in the hole competing against the Big Ten and SEC every single year based on the conference revenue disparities.
Look, it's not like I wake up every morning hoping we get to 24-team entities. However, in a world where the center of college sports is shifting rapidly to players (and their families) rather than college administrators, coaches and athletic directors, conferences need to be able to adapt and adapt quickly. Not even the vaunted Big Ten is immune to stresses that, so far, they've failed to properly address. Among them is the increasingly anti-sports culture taking hold in lots of the old and expanded Big Ten footprint. Until that and others are addressed, we have to be willing to cast our net far and wide. Getting beyond 14 is NOT about getting to a certain #. It's about reaching parts of the country where similar institutions and better recruiting grounds are located. Location, location, location.
My preference is to partially merge with the PAC. Similar institutions. History of working together. Geography will be a PITA. However, I know certain B1G fans may not want to see more games played on West Coast. Understandable but we're in a new era, where the 4-letter monster threatens to end college sports as we know it
in total.
I don't know about you but I'm damn sick and tired of the pro-South, anti-North, anti-Northeast spin coming out of the so-called Worldwide Leader in (some) Sports. Yes, there's a bias against West Coast sports as well, except for the Lakers and, somewhat, Dodgers. I know you're very comfortable in your tradition but you have been, for years, not cognizant of the fact that the 4-letter network despises the Big Ten (like they were of the Big East).
It's not business, it's personal with them. The cable business, with their gouging in subscription fees, has allowed them to pursue personal agendas that have nothing to do with standard business practices. As long as the spigot continues to run then they can continue to run an ideological agenda, not a business-oriented one. ESPN Über Alles.
The sooner we leave the 4-letter monster the better.
But getting back to topic. I do think that the stress on the ACC would increase. However, part of the ACC's issue is their different sporting agendas. It's not been easy cobbling together basketball-oriented programs with football-oriented programs and diverse institutions under one roof. Perhaps if they better leverage their market power then they could be in a more comfortable position. What is really dragging them down is their arrogance towards similar institutions outside of their conference. Internal stresses already were present even before the monetary disadvantages became better known. Perhaps if the core didn't exhibit a country-club mindset then a lot of the unhappiness from within the ranks wouldn't be as present.
I'm not breaking new ground here but the ACC could've had a shorter term deal. If the ACC core were really as committed to their conference as they said they were back in 2014 then they could've used that short-term deal and now be in a position to gain interest from other parties. The new streaming platforms coming online would have been a boon for the ACC. They could have their basketball-oriented league and still have the football schools not complaining so much. But Swoff and others within that conferences acted out of fear and loathing.