The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Archive for the tag “realignment”

28 Dec 2011

Conference Scheduling Arrangements–Not Likely for the ACC

Today’s news in college sports is that the Big 10 and Pac-12 have reached an agreement to have conference foes matchup in football every year beginning in 2017.  The arrangement in football will actually lag well behind the other sports, as the conferences hope to have basketball schools play each other next year.  The question, of course, is whether the ACC try to find a similar arrangement.  The Confidential is skeptical that the ACC will try to reach a similar cooperative plan with any other conference.

Unlike the Big 10 and Pac-12, the ACC does not have a conference that is a natural partner/rival.  If the ACC was to try to drum up a similar plan, the Confidential believes that the SEC could work.  While not too meaningful from a geographic expansion standpoint, the closeness of the locations of the schools would perhaps make it even more contentious. In fact, there are already several games featuring rivals from the two conferences.  And there are often games between schools from the two conferences.  So, perhaps the ACC and SEC could consider a scheduling arrangement that builds off of the natural rivalries already being played.

As an example, the ACC and SEC could plan to have games like this in a typical season:

  • Florida State: Florida
  • Georgia Tech: Georgia
  • Clemson: South Carolina
  • Duke: Vanderbilt
  • North Carolina: Tennessee
  • Wake Forest: Mississippi
  • North Carolina State: Texas A&M
  • Virginia: Arkansas
  • Virginia Tech: LSU
  • Boston College: Missouri
  • Syracuse: Kentucky
  • Maryland: Mississippi State
  • Miami: Alabama
  • Pittsburgh: Auburn

Those would be pretty competitive games.  It would also help ensure that the ACC trio of Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson are not at a competitive disadvantage simply because their rivalries force them to play SEC schools.  While not everyone in the ACC can play an elite SEC school, a game against Kentucky or Mississippi State is more challenging than a Sun Belt or MAC opponent.

The detriment, of course, is that such agreements erode scheduling flexibility.  If you are Boston College, 8 or 9 conference games, plus the annual Notre Dame game and a mandatory SEC game would leave only 1 or 2 openings.

But there is an even greater reason for the ACC to eschew a scheduling arrangement like the Big 10 and Pac-12 have reached.  Money.  Both the Big 10 and Pac-12 have network agreements that give tangible incentives to expand the geographic scope of the network.  For the Big 10, it can expand into a new region–say New Jersey to take Rutgers–and reap the benefits of one new market.  Instead, it just gave everyone on the West Coast a reason to want the Big 10 Network.  If that’s the only way to see the big USC-Ohio State game, people will add the channel.

In contrast, the ACC and SEC have deals with ESPN that do not confer a direct benefit for expanding the footprint.  So, in the end, it is difficult to see the ACC trying to duplicate what the Big 10 and Pac-12 have done.  There is just not enough of an incentive to do it.  At least right now.  Time will tell.

What do you think?  Should the ACC try to set-up a scheduling arrangement?  If so, with what conference?

 

 

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only and tagged , , ,
08 Dec 2011

ACC Expansion Still on Hold

Yesterday, the Big East announced that it would stretch coast-to-coast by adding Boise State, San Diego State, Houston, SMU, and Central Florida.  If this move surprised you, then you are likely living without the Internet (how are you even reading this?) because this had been rumored and discussed for many weeks now.  The announcement was mere anti-climactic confirmation of what everyone had already known.  But it does impact the ACC because the addition did not in any way alter the Big East’s stance that Syracuse and Pittsburgh must stick around for the full 27-months before departing.

Indeed, according to ESPN, Big East Commissioner John Marinatto remains firm in holding Syracuse and Pittsburgh to that time frame:

Meanwhile, Marinatto said the conference is still determined to hold the three departing schools to the Big East bylaw that each signed and helped craft, especially Pitt, when it was the chair of the conference board, to a 27-month departure. That would mean the three schools couldn’t leave until the fall of 2014.

Pitt and Syracuse are joining the ACC and haven’t pushed to leave early.

While West Virginia has sued the Big East to leave early, Syracuse and Pittsburgh are placing nice.  And it is not being reciprocated.

The ESPN report further notes that ACC commissioner John Swofford has indicated that the ACC will accept those schools at any point over the next three years.  While there will be no battle over the schools, the ACC will not get caught flat-footed if they are released early.

The question that begs is why the Big East would really want to keep these schools around.  If Syracuse and Pitt have good seasons, that will just make their departure all the more painful.  Just think about what happens if either school defeats Boise State.  How much would the Broncos’ reputation be hurt the following year once those schools are gone?  And if Syracuse and Pitt have poor seasons, this will simply drag down the schedule strength of the current schools.  The Confidential understands that the Big East would want to keep Syracuse and Pitt around for basketball purposes–but that is the one area where the Big East does not need any help.  Why have your elite, remaining schools run the risk of losses to departing programs?  From an on-field perspective, there is little reason for the Big East to dig its heels in, especially now that the Big East has the Plan B in place.

One can only assume that the Big East’s position is one that can be negotiated with $$$.  If the schools offer to pay the Big East some additional funds, the Big East will release them.  It seems likely that there will be no changes for 2012, as the Big East cannot secure replacements that soon.  But, by 2013, that problem should be gone.

For the ACC, this means that expansion is still on hold.  It will be, at least, 2013 before we find out how many Syracuse fans will cram into the Carrier Dome to watch a game against Duke or North Carolina.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment and tagged , , , , , , , ,
02 Nov 2011
4 Comments

Future Big East vs. Future ACC

The recent addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC is great news for the future.  It is hoped that this move will rejuvenate football, strengthen basketball, add new lucrative markets, solidify the northern core of the conference, and perhaps lead to Notre Dame joining to really add juice to football.  That’s the easy part.

The fact of the matter is that it also weakens the Big East.  While the Big East was likely to lose a team or two anyway, the ACC’s move means that the Big East lost four total teams.  In addition, three of those teams–all but TCU–are great basketball schools too.  The Big East’s loss is the ACC’s gain.  But, forget basketball for a moment, this is all about football.

As of yesterday, the Big East has apparently sent out 6 invitations.  It is expected that these are football only invitations to Boise St., Air Force, and Navy.  It is also expected that these are all-sports invitations to UCF, Houston, and SMU.  While many have characterized this as a move of desperation, how will the future Big East stack up against the future ACC in football moving forward?

Actually, let’s take a step back.  From a prestige standpoint, the new ACC will absolutely crush the Big East.  Even the middle of the pack of the ACC will be name schools, such as Virginia, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, etc.  These are schools that have had football success in the past 15 to 20 years.  BCS appearances.  Bowl games.  National titles even.

Also, this is not about marketing and money.  The new Big East will have new markets, but not domination in markets.  Nobody carries NYC, home of Rutgers.  Louisville splits Kentucky with, well, Kentucky.  Cincy is second chair to Ohio State.  Houston and SMU are behind Texas, Texas A&M, and sometimes Oklahoma in the major Texas markets.  Boise St. is a small market.  Navy and Air Force are national, but nobody is turning in to watch Navy play anyone other than Army or Notre Dame.  USF and UCF still have to get over the big three in Miami, FSU, and Florida.  Needless to say, this is not about $$$ yet.  The ACC wins hands down.

But let’s just look at it from an on-field football performance scenario.  According to the CBS, the new Big East will have the current #5, #14, and #23 teams in the AP poll.  The new ACC will have #11, #12, and #22.  That’s pretty close.  Perhaps even an edge to the Big East?

To go beyond the top 25, one needs to look at the CBS Rankings.  While The Confidential does not pretend that these have any real merit, it is one (albeit very subjective and debatable) measuring stick.

The new Big East has #4 (Boise St.), #8 (Houston), #26 (Cincy), #42 (SMU), #47 (Rutgers), #53 (USF),  #67 (Louisville), #78 (Air Force), #81 (UCF), #92 (UConn), and #93 (Navy)

The new ACC has #10 (Clemson), #12 (Virginia Tech), #24 (Georgia Tech), #32 (UNC), #41 (FSU), #45 (Miami), #46 (Wake Forest), #51 (Syracuse), #58 (Virginia), #75 (NC State), #77 (Pitt), #87 (Duke), #101 (Maryland), and #104 (BC).

Top 25: ACC 3, Big East 2 (could easily be 3)

Top 50: ACC 7 (could be 8 with Syracuse), Big East 5.

Edge for the ACC.  Although it should be noted that the ACC does have more teams.  And the Big East does not have teams in the bottom 25.

The bigger question, of course, is whether Boise St., Houston, and SMU can sustain their current rankings.  The ACC knows that it will have 2 or 3 ranked teams every year.  By moving to 12 teams, the Big East makes it far more likely that they will avoid the embarrassment of finishing a season shut out of the top 25.

Finally, let’s not ignore schedule here.  If all teams played a schedule at the same level, there is little doubt that these rankings would get shaken up considerably.  Boise St. has played Georgia.  Cincinnati lost to NC State, despite the 50 placement gap in these CBS rankings.  Cincy destroyed NC State, but lost to struggling Tennessee.  FSU lost to Oklahoma.  Miami lost to Kansas State.  UNC beat Rutgers.  However, given that the Big East teams will not have the elite opponents on the schedule, they are going to benefit by having a better, but emptier, record.  This is something that the ACC will just have to overcome. But, all-in-all, it sure looks like the Big East is not going to fall off the map here.

What do you think?

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Football and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
01 Nov 2011

West Virginia Sues Big East

Apparently, West Virginia is serious about leaving the Big East in time for 2012.  West Virginia has now filed a lawsuit against the Big East seeking to confirm that it may do so.  The import of this lawsuit is that it may lead to negotiations with West Virginia that ultimately pave the way for Pitt and Syracuse to join the ACC sooner.

The Confidential is not impressed with the merits of the West Virginia lawsuit.  It reads as little more than an air of “gripes” against the Big East, which–while perhaps legitimate–do not have anything to do with the negotiated 27-month period before exiting.  The 27-month period recognizes that schools can become dissatisfied and leave.  Unlike an at-will employee, West Virginia just has to provide 27-months notice.  As a practical matter, the waiting period gives the Big East ample time to find a suitable replacement and readjust schedules.  The waiting period is certainly logical.

However, the Confidential is also not persuaded that this is a lawsuit that West Virginia expects to win.  Instead, West Virginia expects the Big East to countersue for the damages caused by West Virginia not abiding to the 27-month waiting period.  This is where things get much more beneficial for West Virginia.

As a primer, it is a misconception that one cannot breach a contract.  A person is free to breach any contract he or she wants.  Among the purposes of a contract are to give the other party the right to sue for damages if there is a breach of contract.  In the absence of a contract, West Virginia could do what it wants.  With a contract, West Virginia may be sued for damages.

The mere fact that West Virginia intends to breach a contract is not proof of the Big East’s damages.  Think about it logically.  You hire a landscaper to mow your own once a week for $25 for the summer.  The landscaper calls you up and says I cannot do it anymore.  You hire another landscaper, who charges $45 a week because his slate is full.  Your damages are $20/week because of the breach of contract.  You could sue for that (but wouldn’t due to the low amount, obviously).  However, what if you hired a neighborhood teen to mow the lawn for $25 a week and this teen does just as good a job as the landscaper?  In that instance, you would not incur damages from the breach.  So the landscaper is off the hook, even though he breached the contract.

With respect to West Virginia’s situation, the Big East would have to prove damages caused by West Virginia not fulfilling its 27-month waiting period.  If West Virginia agrees to stay for 10 months, rather than 27 months, the Big East would have to prove the damages caused by West Virginia’s refusal to stay that extra 17 months.

But with good lawyering and a competent judge, West Virginia should be able to show that these damages do not include the damages caused by West Virginia leaving the conference generally.  The contract allows West Virginia to leave.  The only issue is leaving early.  If so, West Virginia should not be responsible for a reduction in television contract revenue or change in bowl structure.

If West Virginia cannot be replaced by 2012, this would leave a vacancy for the Big East.  In that circumstance, the schools might have to hire replacement opponents for football.  The costs there might be an element of damages, but no more than a few million dollars.  Basketball is unlikely to present this problem.  West Virginia would gladly agree to pay an extra few million to leave the conference.

Perhaps the schools could seek differences in attendance.  But that would be awfully hard to prove.  If 35,000 people show up to watch Rutgers host replacement Florida International, how does Rutgers prove that West Virginia would have drawn more?  Attendance is driven by the rankings on the schools.  If Rutgers was having a poor season, the quality of the opponent would not matter as much.  If West Virginia is having a down season, they are less of a draw for the home team.  And one can only guess as to the records when the schedules are revised.  Plus, who is to say what week each game would be.  It all gets very speculative and difficult to prove with much certainty.  It does not make it impossible, but it would give the Big East reason to negotiate.  In the end, it can be expected that this lawsuit will lead to a quicker resolution of the departure period and additional cost of doing so than would have been otherwise reached.

Returning to the ACC, the quicker that West Virginia and the Big East sort this out, the quicker that a “precedent” can be set for Syracuse and Pitt to depart.  If, for example, West Virginia settles with the Big East for $4 million extra, Pitt and Syracuse can approach the Big East with the same offer.  In essence, the ACC, Pitt, and Syracuse get to allow West Virginia and the Big XII do their dirty work for them.  The West Virginia lawsuit may lead to earlier realignment for the ACC.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment and tagged , , ,
26 Oct 2011
3 Comments

The Notre Dame Elephant

The proverbial elephant in the conference realignment room remains: Notre Dame.  If Notre Dame says it is ready to join a conference, you can expect the Big 10 and the ACC to start recruiting.  Notre Dame to the conferences is like Lebron James times Sid Crosby to the power of Peyton Manning.  The reasons why the Big 10 and the ACC would want Notre Dame do not need to be listed.

But why would Notre Dame consider the ACC?

Well, we all know that Notre Dame is not on the Atlantic Coast.  Or near it.  Or near ANY coast for that matter.  So there is a poor geographic fit, compared to the Big 10.

Also, Notre Dame has a history of playing the nearby Big 10 schools, especially Michigan, Michigan St. and Purdue.  And the ACC cannot match the Big 10 and its lucrative Big 10 network dollar-for-dollar.

However, contrary to the opinions of your garden-variety Internet troll, Notre Dame is not all about the money.  Notre Dame is all about its football independence.  Notre Dame’s NBC contract allows it to remain independent.  They would get a a raise jumping to the Big 10.  But that would compromise football independence.

Why does Notre Dame care about football independence?  Because it sees itself as a national school.  They want to be seen in the Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, and West.  Their main rival is USC–a home and home between California and South Bend.  They are going to play Navy every year.  A game that gives them some visibility in the mid-Atlantic.  They want games in New York City, as evidenced by agreements to play Army and Syracuse in that market.  They will gladly play against Boston College, Stanford, Texas, Georgia Tech,  and Miami.  When you are not confined to a conference schedule, you have the freedom to play a unique schedule every year.  This is HUGE.  It is huge for the alumni.  It is huge for recruiting.  It is Notre Dame.

This is also a strength of the ACC.  The ACC stretches from Boston to Miami.  Notre Dame’s home games cover the Midwest.  It’s away games could include, in any season, trips to Boston, New York City (Syracuse or UConn or Rutgers), the DC area, the Carolinas, Atlanta, and Florida.  That is quite a stretch of real estate.  Throw in a game against USC in California and you’ve got the West coast.  Perhaps when home against USC, Notre Dame could schedule the Navy game for San Diego or play Stanford or Washington.   They already have Texas on the OOC slate.

In the Big 10, Notre Dame would get its 6 or 7 home games, with perhaps only Penn State representing an opportunity to get East Coast viewership.  The addition of Rutgers with Notre Dame would help.  But that is still 9 or 10 games with a Midwest focus.  I have to give the edge to the ACC.

Academically, both the Big 10 and ACC are excellent.  The Big 10 is primarily state schools that focus on research.  The Notre Dame philosophy is closer to Syracuse in that regard than Northwestern (who does several times more research than Notre Dame or Syracuse).  Plus, an ACC with Notre Dame would have several private schools.  The fit is there for Notre Dame.

Nobody knows if or when Notre Dame will join any conference, much less the ACC.  But the ACC has a very real chance of landing Notre Dame someday…

Posted by acaffrey in Conference Realignment and tagged , , , , , ,
26 Oct 2011
1 Comment

As Lee Corso would say… “NOT SO FAST” West Virginia…

Apparently, West Virginia to the Big XII has hit a snag.  According to ESPN:

West Virginia has been notified by the Big 12 Conference that its expansion process is on hold, a school source told ESPN’s Joe Schad on Wednesday.

The Big 12 is waiting on Missouri formally to withdraw from the conference and that there has been some late “hard lobbying” by Louisville for Big 12 inclusion, the source told Schad.

Interestingly, it looks like politics is becoming a factor, as Kentucky’s politicians are getting involved.   This conference realignment stuff has always been very heated.

The ACC knows firsthand about this.  Recall the expansion efforts to include Syracuse and Boston College that were derailed (temporarily in both cases) when Virginia politics got involved.

This could get ugly.

Posted by acaffrey in Conference Realignment and tagged , , ,
25 Oct 2011

West Virginia to the Big XII?

Nobody can call this a surprise.  I have never quite understood why the Big XII would select Louisville–a relative newcomer to competitive football–over a school with the history of West Virginia. West Virginia has equivalent academics, an entire state fanbase with no real competition, good basketball, and football on a level to compete with anyone (except Syracuse, apparently).

The disappointing thing is that I am sure that Syracuse and Pitt would have loved to see West Virginia join Notre Dame in moving the ACC to 16 teams someday.  While West Virginia’s academics are subpar, Notre Dame would make up for that.  Plus, it is not hard to salivate over a conference division like this:

  • North: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, ND, Virginia, Va Tech, and Maryland
  • South: Duke, NC, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Ga Tech, FSU, and Miami.

That surely would have made FSU and Clemson happy.  A strong commitment to football. The single greatest threat to the ACC is either (a) the Big Ten wooing Maryland or Va Tech; or (b) the SEC wooing Florida State or Va Tech.  Anything that can keep the football powers (historically, if not recently) happy is good for the entire conference.  While Rutgers may have superior academics and UConn has superior basketball, it is West Virginia that is best suited to placate the football schools.

Of course, Notre Dame has not let out any suggestion that it is ready to give up treasured football independence.  If they are even a few steps away from considering a conference affiliation for football, it is being done entirely behind the scenes. It sure does not seem imminent.

And… it would be naive to think that West Virginia to the Big XII would be permanent.  As long as Texas and Oklahoma have wandering eyes, that conference will always be the least stable conference not named the Big East.  So the ND/WVU dream scenario can always resume in 2018 or 2025 or whenever.

Posted by acaffrey in Conference Realignment and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post Navigation

Newer Entries →