Expansion appetites in the ACC may have shifted, and they may be bringing the league Stanford, Cal, and SMU. Nobody seems to want to say it with any certainty, but the league was reportedly set to meet last night to hash out details and potentially take a vote. Reports hold that the decision should be made this week, though the shooting in Chapel Hill which canceled last night’s meeting may lead to further delays.
From what’s being reported (I’m getting most of my reporting from Pete Thamel at ESPN and Ross Dellenger at Yahoo), it appears the ACC would gain $72M more per year from ESPN if it adds three members. This isn’t a full proportional increase in revenue, but it’s proportional on a certain tier of the deal, and rendering that piece of the question moot, it isn’t going to decrease any existing member’s revenue share in the immediate term. Reports hold that SMU would take no share for the first seven years of its ACC membership, and that Cal and Stanford would only take something like 30%, or roughly $9M per year, something estimated to generally cover travel and nothing else. If some of the remaining $54M-ish is distributed across the ACC to cover additional travel expenses, this would leave something like $30M or $40M to be split across existing schools. If not, the full $54M (or whatever the number is) would be up for grabs. Reports hold that a large share of this would be added to the league’s recently created pool of performance-based prize money, giving bonuses for strong results in football and possibly other sports.
There are four groups of decision-makers here. Let’s go through where each stands on the deal, and why they’re there.
Group 1: Stanford, Cal, SMU
What Stanford, Cal, and SMU are reportedly trying to do is forgo seven years of media income in exchange for power conference membership. In SMU’s case, there is also presumably an exit fee owed to the American Athletic Conference wrapped up in this.
Is this worth it for these three schools? It’s a mix.
For SMU, yes. SMU wants to be in a power conference. It’s made that abundantly clear. It misses the Southwest Conference days, and it will do just about anything to get someone, anyone, to add it to a power league. I have significant doubts about SMU’s ability to compete at a power conference level given its inability to stand out in the AAC, but perhaps the legitimacy of joining a power conference will change that. I’m also curious why they wouldn’t persuade whatever donors are presumably bankrolling this ACC quest to instead spend the next seven years trying to build an SEC-worthy program, but if this is what their cost-benefit analysis says to do, credit to them for doing it. It’s bold, and they’re going to look like geniuses if it works, and if it doesn’t work, it’s only money.
For Stanford and Cal, I think the question is what they want their athletics to be. How important are sports for these two schools? Do they help bring in great students? Do they help keep the alumni base engaged? Do they have sentimental value? Stanford has the successful athletic department already, and so it has something to lose, but part of how these schools got where they currently stand seems to have been by declining to jump first at the Big 12. A case can be made that they allowed others to take places that could have been theirs. Now, they’re chasing power conference membership at decent financial cost (they would make more money these next seven years in the Mountain West, and for the record, I can’t tell if the seven-year piece is true for Stanford and Cal’s reduced share or if that’s just how long SMU will play for free), and they’re chasing it at significant travel cost to their athletes. Washington flying to Madison is one thing. Stanford flying to Raleigh and Winston-Salem is a step further, and the benefit is lower.
We’ve often asked on this website whether or not Cal wants sports. It doesn’t appear to be investing significantly in their success. We’ve asked a similar question of Georgetown under the current administration. We haven’t asked it of Stanford—they are great at sports, just not in a conventional way—but we could ask it there, too, about football. I don’t personally think seven years in the Mountain West would ruin Stanford’s water polo and tennis programs, but I could be very wrong. They evidently disagree with me, if they’re really ready to take this deal. (It would be so funny if the ACC invited these guys and got turned down, but that appears unlikely.)
Group 2: Jack Swarbrick
Notre Dame’s athletic director, a Stanford law school alum, wants Stanford and Cal to have a home in a power conference, and he thinks it’s very bad that they don’t already. Thank heavens for Jack Swarbrick. If he’d been around in the 1940s, the University of Chicago would still be a Big Ten school and Michigan State might be known as Central Central Michigan. I can’t wait to see Jack Swarbrick’s next performance of heroism, when he brings MIT and Cal Tech into the SEC in the name of academics. Then? Oxford and Cambridge to the resurrected Old Big East.
Jokes aside, Notre Dame will benefit from closer association with Stanford in sports other than football, and this would be a coup for Notre Dame’s football scheduling in the event Stanford continues to return to their pre-Harbaugh level of what passed back then for competition. Notre Dame plays roughly five ACC opponents a year in football, and it also always plays Stanford. Condense those six combined games to five and that’s another potential cupcake or another potential marquee game. Cal? Sure. Notre Dame loves recruiting California. It always spends Thanksgiving weekend out west, and it does that for a reason, and that reason is that its head coach immediately goes off recruiting while others prepare for conference championships. SMU? Of course. Getting to play a mediocre football team in a talent-rich locale is a great opportunity, and engaging whatever Irish alumni live in the nation’s fourth-largest metro is something national schools like Notre Dame love. Fewer trips to the Eastern Seaboard and more trips to Texas and California are good for Notre Dame.
Group 3: Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State
These are the four who hold the power, but they only hold power if they stick together, provided they don’t pull someone else in their direction. These are the four reported “no” votes who held back the last attempt at adding Stanford and Cal. Florida State has been the loudest in its complaints, but both FSU and Clemson have obvious eyes for the SEC, while UNC makes a whole lot of sense as an eventual Big Ten target and NC State plays in a growing metro and has one of the larger ACC fanbases. Each of these schools correctly thinks that if they were to form a new conference with only the top half of the ACC and seek a media deal with that conference, they would make more money. These four are subsidizing Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse.
The question for these four is not, I don’t think, how much money is enough over these next seven years. It might be a pain in the ass to play Stanford, Cal, and SMU, but I’d guess one dollar is enough to make that pain worthwhile. What I’d reason the real question is here is what happens after seven years. Once SMU starts getting revenue, once Cal and Stanford get some sort of revenue beyond free travel, once the ACC is really a 17-team football league and there are still five or six years left on the ESPN deal…how much money goes to Florida State?
Many would respond to this question by saying that in seven years, Florida State and UNC will be leaving anyway, with renegotiations on deals in the other power conferences creating another shakeup. This is a risky line of thinking, though. There’s a lot that can go wrong. College sports media rights could become seen as less valuable. A new superconference could emerge and leave the whole ACC out (no ACC program is a top-eight program right now in terms of value unless you count Notre Dame as an ACC program). Whatever value advantages these four schools think they have over the rest of the country could lessen, or could even disappear. The SEC has been reported to not want Florida State and Clemson right now. NC State isn’t exactly a national brand in anything. UNC is probably the safest of the four, with its Jordan connections and its academic stature and its geographic usefulness making it a nice fit for the Big Ten, but if it continues to underwhelm at football, what’s to say the Big Ten doesn’t grow eyes for Utah?
There are a lot of things that can go wrong for these schools over the next seven years. How much money over these seven years is worth that risk?
Group 4: The Rest of the ACC
For the remaining ten ACC athletic departments, adding Stanford, Cal, and SMU isn’t really about money. For these ten, adding schools is about stability. The Big 12 and Pac-12 just gave at-risk ACC schools a strong impression that the thing which ensures conference survival is not quality but quantity. Iowa State and Kansas State are not significantly stronger brands or programs or schools than Washington State and Oregon State, if they’re stronger at all. They survived, though, because their conference commissioner acted quickly and got their league unified, restocking by enough that the conference could withstand a surprise departure of two or four additional members before beginning to panic.
I’m skeptical of how universal a rule this is. The Pac-12 situation has happened one other time in modern college sports, and that was nearly thirty years ago with the SWC. I also don’t really see the downside for schools like Pitt, though. Why not play Stanford? Could be fun. And maybe, just maybe, it’ll lead to survival as a power conference institution in 2030.
Prediction Time
I’m intrigued by the reports that Jim Phillips wants a unanimous vote. I’m curious about how Stanford’s presidential turnover is impacting this process. I’m drawn to the possibility of Stanford and Cal actually ending up being the ones saying no. I’m skeptical of the reports that say someone from the four “no” schools is going to flip but can’t name which one exactly. There is a very real possibility here that sources from ACC offices or from the eleven “yes” schools or from SMU or from ESPN’s own teams are trying to use anonymous reports to pressure their desired situation into happening, just like the Pac-12 tried to use anonymous reports to will its own survival into existence and the Big 12 used anonymous reports to threaten adding Gonzaga or UConn and keep the pressure up on Colorado to jump ship. The fact no meeting is being rescheduled, out of respect to UNC, could work in SMU’s favor (let’s be fair, SMU wants this the most) by giving more time for someone to flip in favor of their admission. It could also work the other way, giving, I don’t know, Louisville time to flip in the other direction.
For what it’s worth, Andrea Adelson at ESPN reported this afternoon that with Jim Phillips going to CFP meetings (more on that soon) and UNC dealing with the horrific death of a professor by gunshot on campus during the first week of class, no meeting has been rescheduled. Andrea Adelson at ESPN also reported—same report—that “it is (her) understanding nobody has flipped yet on adding Cal, Stanford and SMU but talks continue.”
If I was the Mountain West, I’d be all over Stanford and Cal and asking SMU if it wants to be a ringleader. I don’t think that’s happening either, though, and so…
I can’t say it.
I don’t think it’s happening.
It seems 50/50, at most.
Those reporting most favorably towards this happening have done a very bad job of being right about this stuff these last few years, and they’re fighting the last war right now, trying to cover their bases and lean towards expansion happening after getting caught in bed with George Kliavkoff with the lights out. I trust Pete Thamel and Andrea Adelson and Dennis Dodd, and I think Ross Dellenger gets his numbers right.
What did we really learn from the Pac-12 falling apart? A very basic lesson in microeconomics: Everyone acts in what they perceive to be their own best interests. It is not in the better ACC brands’ best interests to add these schools. It might not even be better for Stanford and Cal.
Cruel and Also Dumb
Arizona State told its players Sunday that they won’t get to play in a bowl this year even if they improbably qualify, thanks to a university effort to lessen the severity of its eventual sanctions from violations committed a few years ago under Herm Edwards. It’s unfair to the players, who signed up to play under a different sales pitch. It’s also just stupid. The NCAA has talked about getting away from these retroactive punishments which target individuals—the active players—for violations which had nothing to do with them. The NCAA just let Tennessee go with a slap on the wrist for a case in which they allegedly gave recruits McDonalds bags full of cash. A bowl ban? Unlikely to come from them. ASU’s administration is not looking great these days.
The Playoff Format Isn’t About to Change
We promised some talk on the CFP meetings, and here’s what you need to know:
- All the commissioners (including Swarbrick and Kliavkoff) are meeting in Dallas starting tomorrow to talk playoff.
- There are some threats, but no one is seriously talking about wanting smaller than a 12-team playoff.
- Most serious disagreement seems to revolve around whether there should be six automatic bids for conference champions or, in light of the Pac-12’s likely dissolution or at least demotion from Power Five status, only five. The more powerful figures (Greg Sankey, to name a name) want five. Make of that what you will.
- No decisions are expected to be made this week.
The meetings are important, they’re always important, important stuff is being done for college football, but these are early-stage negotiations for something low stakes (what fan really cares that much about the minimum number of technically possible Cinderellas allowed into the field). If you love these games of chess, go for it, pay attention, but unlike realignment, which determines the future of college athletics as a whole, this is far less important than the upcoming games on the field. Read up on Utah vs. Florida. It’ll make your Thursday night a lot more fun.
The Gambling Scandal
We’ll have more on Iowa State as gameday gets closer, but in a shift, Iowa is facing a suspension of consequence in the state’s gambling investigation. Hawkeyes starting defensive tackle Noah Shannon was suspended last week by the NCAA despite not being charged with tampering, like most others already named.
Shannon’s suspension is being appealed, but it’s hard to believe Iowa will play him against Utah State, and I have a hard time believing they’d actually play him against Iowa State if the appeal isn’t resolved by then. I would think that, unlike ASU’s self-imposed bowl ban, might impact how harshly the NCAA ultimately, in totality, comes down.
The Waiver Wire, the Cubs
Per Jeff Passan and Ken Rosenthal, the following players were placed on waivers today:
- Mike Clevinger
- Lucas Giolito
- Harrison Bader
- Reynaldo López
- Carlos Carrasco
- Matt Moore
- Hunter Renfroe
- Randal Grichuk
- José Cisnero
- Even more!
What’s happening? Well, there still can’t be waiver-wire trades. That hasn’t changed back to the previous situation. Instead, these are non-contenders cutting costs by giving players up for free before rosters effectively lock for the season on Thursday. If someone else claims a player, that team takes on the rest of the contract.
Who might claim these guys? A lot of teams. I’d sure like the Cubs to have Lucas Giolito as a starting pitching option right now. The priority goes from worst record to best, and there might (I remember this, but it may be a false memory, and I can’t find it anywhere else) be a rule where players pass through the opposite league first before passing through their own. Some are saying this rule disappeared with the new CBA, but I’m struggling to find that confirmed. If the rule exists, the Padres and then Marlins are getting first dibs on the AL guys and the Guardians get to take a crack at bringing back Carrasco. If it doesn’t, the Guardians are tied with the Padres, but after those three, it goes to the Reds either way, and then to the Giants, and then on to the Red Sox, Twins, and Diamondbacks, who are all also tied. From there, it goes Cubs, Blue Jays, Phillies, Astros, Brewers/Rangers, Mariners, Rays, Dodgers, Orioles, Braves. I have a hard time believing many players make it past the Diamondbacks on that list. I am terrified of what this could do for the Reds. I am curious about who else is on waivers that Rosenthal and Passan haven’t reported.
As for the Cubs:
Tough one last night. One of those miserable games where it’s never out of reach but it’s never a hopeful situation. Hopefully Justin Steele does the ace thing tonight. Catching the Brewers is highly improbable, and the chance of catching the Phillies isn’t looking great, but the biggest deal is making the playoffs, which will require holding off at least four of Arizona, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Miami, and San Diego. Three of those five won last night, and only one lost.
