Author: BullCityCoordinators

I think that, after what we saw with the death of the PAC-12, we can retire the term “conference realignment”. The destruction of a historic conference of champions goes well beyond mere realignment. It’s not quite apocalyptic, nor is it necessarily a doomsday scenario, at least not beyond the Pacific Coast, but it isn’t particularly great for Olympic sports. Instead of simple realignment, what we’ve witnessed of late seems a lot more like restructuring of the college landscape.

Naturally, there’s been a lot of wondering what the ACC will do in regard to expansion and why it isn’t doing anything now. Not unexpectedly, there’s a significant amount of grumbling that the ACC is dead or will be dead soon (looking at you, FSU). I’m not sure that’s correct. While administrators and university presidents naturally want more money for their schools (although how you can’t feed a college family on $30 plus million per year of TV money is beyond me), I don’t think the member institutions are going to be able to kill the ACC just yet.

Why? Well, the ACC is secure until 2036 or shortly before thanks to the Grant of Rights (barring something completely crazy occurring when Notre Dame gets a new TV deal). As far as whether the ACC will ultimately expand, I think that we need to look at a few important dates to answer that question. When we do that, we can see that nothing much will happen until the end of this decade and the start of the next. Why do I think that?

To begin with, ESPN really runs the ACC. It has the TV rights and, given that the B1G is making two West Coast teams go to Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, etc., we should all accept that TV money and broadcasting decisions are what matters. If ESPN finds a few teams it wants to add to its ACC portfolio, it will expand the conference. And if you don’t think that TV deals are what matters, consider when conference restructuring takes place.

The PAC-12’s grant of rights and broadcast deal comes to an end at the conclusion of this athletic season. It’s no coincidence that the teams are leaving when that deal ends. Prior to that, we saw Texas and Oklahoma announce they were leaving the B12 (now Super 16, to me) in 2021. They did this knowing that the B12 TV deal would end in 2025. Going back further, you saw the B12 lose Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri right around the time when its old deal was winding down and in the midst of a new one being signed in 2012. So, you should always expect movement to coincide with when TV deals are close to ending.

Which means what for the ACC? Well, in addition to the Notre Dame deal ending soon, the 3-5-5 is set to last until 2026 and the Raycom deal comes to an end in 2027, so we may see something then. But that may just result in some more revenue as opposed to adding new or losing old members. After that, we start looking into the 2030s for indications of when ACC restructuring may occur. In 2030, the B1G’s deal concludes. The 2031-32 season is when the AAC deal ends. The Super 16’s deal ends in 2031. Finally, the SEC deal ends in 2034 which is closest to when the ACC’s deal ends in 2036. So, if there are going to be changes, around 2030 and onward would be the key time to look for movement.

Whether teams want to move will depend on the deals their conferences make and what member institutions want to do. Does the ACC raid the AAC to increase numbers? Do member ACC schools look elsewhere and leave the ACC in the graveyard of conferences past? Or, does the ACC pick up schools from other P5 (or whatever number we’re going with now) conferences and grow that way? We don’t know, but we will know by the 2030s.

While some people question whether other P5 schools would want to leave their current conferences to join the ACC, I wouldn’t rule it out (although it’s all speculative and I concede that). David Hale pointed out that contraction may happen if the networks don’t want to pay underperforming teams much as the big dogs. Also, wouldn’t the big dogs benefit from dropping bad schools and distributing more money amongst fewer members? (Although, again, it doesn’t seem like any school is hurting for cash.) If that happens, would teams in the position that Stanford, Cal, Oregon State and Washington State are in right now look to the ACC as a natural landing spot? Again, who knows? All I know is we still have an ACC and I’m glad for that.

To conclude, if I’m a betting man, I don’t think we see much movement until we get closer to 2030, probably right around 2027 or 2028. That is right in the window when things start to happen with TV contracts and, as we’ve seen, that’s all that matters when it comes to conference restructuring. So, until then, I’d just ignore all the sound and fury as it signifies nothing. While the ACC could, according to some people, use a little more cash from its TV deal, we, as fans, should be glad that the Grant of Rights is holding the ACC together. Whether administrators feel the same way in about four years is a whole other matter.

I will say that expansion will probably need to happen if the conference wants to survive. Why? Look no further than the PAC-12. It sat on its hands, didn’t grow and now it’s about to be dead.

Let me know what you think about what I think in the comments, on Mastodon, on Reddit, on Post, on Instagram, Spoutible, or on Twitter.

As always, Go Duke!