• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

The move to the Big 10 was unpopular at the time among MD fans and alums, and MD Sports have pretty much tanked since they made the move. Their men's basketball team is no longer considered a top 20 program (after winning a Natty and going to multiple final 4s while a member of the ACC), and their football team is about the most irrelvant power V team in the nation. Even their women's hoop team has regressed (MD won the women's natty in 2006), as has their men's soccer program. At this point, I guess its just about survival, and MD will continue to survive in the Big 10. Kudos.

So, I guess MD is "playing chess" in that they joined a conference that has become one of the two dominant conferences in college sports (although not for sustained success), but interest and excitement about their programs has dropped off the table at MD. MD football games have become like NW football games where half the sparse crowd at the games is there to see their conference opponent. It's sad for a big state school that would get raucous home crowds in basketball for every opponent, and in football, when they were good (which was often).

So, congrats for keeping a seat at the table, but never really eating anything good.

All of this makes sense. I get it.

But if WFU had a chance right now to join the B10 and didn't, my head would explode. It's like saying, yes, this ship is sinking, but that lifeboat is too crowded. I hate that college sports has turned into yet another money-driven thing, but it has. So even the also-rans, like MD, are likely going to have resources that, as it exists currently, WFU won't have. Add to that, the "restructuring" comment made by one of the ADs recently, and standing pat and hoping it all works out is a very bad strategy.

As a part of your response, if you choose to make one, please answer two questions.

1. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today, do you think Currie would take it?
2. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today and you were the decision-maker, would you take it?

My answers FWIW: yes and yes.

Granted, it may be partly due to luck and timing, but there's no question MD is better off now than it would be in today's ACC.
 
holes: I'll ask this again then, didn't your breathren ex-commish Swofford get us into this mess to begin with??
Swofford must get a lot of blame for the situation that the ACC finds itself in today, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

Swofford was the head of the ACC when the ACC's current contracts were signed, but he did not have absolute power in the ACC. The ultimate authority in the ACC lies with the presidents of the universities that make up the ACC and their bosses, the university boards of trustees to whom the presidents report.

All of the presidents had to approve the contracts, the grant-of-rights agreements etc. and all the other terms of the ESPN contracts. Of course that doesn't mean that the presidents pored over the contracts themselves or even read them. They left the details up to their legal departments, athletic directors and others who take care of these things. The presidents trusted their staff to handle things and, with 20-20 hindsight, lots of people in the ACC collectively fucked up. :D



So the ACC's predicament today is not all Swofford's fault. Not that long ago, when FSU joined the conference, the ACC was viewed as the most financially healthy conference (read the story about FSU and the ACC that I posted above).
Unfortunately, circumstances changed quickly over subsequent years and lots of people made decisions that seemed smart at the time but that turned out to be not so smart.
 
Some UNC trustees have signaled that the Tar Heels may officially join the rebellion against the ACC.

Pretty sure the majority of the UNC trustess were appointed by the NC legislature, who are the same folks who said that UNC and NCSU have to be besties in conference alignment going forward. Wonder if they consulted with their overlords in Raleigh before making this declaration.
 
This reads like nothing to me at the moment. It’s a dude on the board. There is probably someone on our board clamoring for the SoCon or getting rid of sports all together. The NC legislature will make this decision.
 
Last edited:
This reads like nothing to me at the moment. It’s a dude on the board. There is probably someone on our board clambering for the SoCon or getting rid of sports all together. The NC legislature will make this decision.
The Board formally approved the audit yesterday. That is the first step in the formal process.
 
Pretty sure the majority of the UNC trustess were appointed by the NC legislature, who are the same folks who said that UNC and NCSU have to be besties in conference alignment going forward. Wonder if they consulted with their overlords in Raleigh before making this declaration.
It was the UNC Board of Governors who said that about UNC and NCSU. The BOG has overall authority over the whole 16 campus UNC system. The guy who suggested UNC leave the ACC is from the UNC-CH Board of Trustees which has authority over just UNC-CH. Those trustees report to the UNC BOG.
 
The Board formally approved the audit yesterday. That is the first step in the formal process.
Right, it's a first step in UNC becoming the next domino to fall. We are currently in the "gradually" part of the decline and fall of the ACC. We'll get to the "suddenly" part sometime in the not-too-distant future.
 
Beavers and Wazzu will have most home games televised on the CW. Step closer to joining the ACC West Division?:

 
Right, it's a first step in UNC becoming the next domino to fall. We are currently in the "gradually" part of the decline and fall of the ACC. We'll get to the "suddenly" part sometime in the not-too-distant future.

And when nobody watches the super conferences.... can't happen soon enough.
 
All of this makes sense. I get it.

But if WFU had a chance right now to join the B10 and didn't, my head would explode. It's like saying, yes, this ship is sinking, but that lifeboat is too crowded. I hate that college sports has turned into yet another money-driven thing, but it has. So even the also-rans, like MD, are likely going to have resources that, as it exists currently, WFU won't have. Add to that, the "restructuring" comment made by one of the ADs recently, and standing pat and hoping it all works out is a very bad strategy.

As a part of your response, if you choose to make one, please answer two questions.

1. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today, do you think Currie would take it?
2. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today and you were the decision-maker, would you take it?

My answers FWIW: yes and yes.

Granted, it may be partly due to luck and timing, but there's no question MD is better off now than it would be in today's ACC.
Probably not.
No.
 
As a part of your response, if you choose to make one, please answer two questions.

1. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today, do you think Currie would take it?
2. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today and you were the decision-maker, would you take it?

My answers FWIW: yes and yes.
I agree. If I were Currie, my answer would be yes. It would make his life a lot easier, especially when he might need to find an additional $20M+ annually to fund revenue sharing.

However, if it were up to me and I had no concern for my own job security, then I think Wake would be just fine by stepping away from big-time college football. I mean copy those schools like Villanova that play a high level of FCS football while also competing at the highest level in other sports, including of course basketball.
 
UNC-CH charges an "athletic fee" of $139.50 per semester, thus $279 per year to all undergrads.

There are about 20K undergrads at UNC so that means UNC students, whether they go to football or basketball games or not, directly contribute about $5.6M per year to the athletic department.

In general, Wake Forest does not charge fees in addition to tuition, but it's probable that Wake's athletic department also receives a substantial subsidy from the overall budget of the university.

fees.jpg
 
All of this makes sense. I get it.

But if WFU had a chance right now to join the B10 and didn't, my head would explode. It's like saying, yes, this ship is sinking, but that lifeboat is too crowded. I hate that college sports has turned into yet another money-driven thing, but it has. So even the also-rans, like MD, are likely going to have resources that, as it exists currently, WFU won't have. Add to that, the "restructuring" comment made by one of the ADs recently, and standing pat and hoping it all works out is a very bad strategy.

As a part of your response, if you choose to make one, please answer two questions.

1. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today, do you think Currie would take it?
2. If WFU was offered a spot in the B10 today and you were the decision-maker, would you take it?

My answers FWIW: yes and yes.

Granted, it may be partly due to luck and timing, but there's no question MD is better off now than it would be in today's ACC.
I would absolutely take the invite, and I know Currie would too. It sucks, and it’s the obvious move from a business standpoint. It’s my job to give my school every opportunity to compete at the highest level.

I would certainly not enjoy sports nearly as much. Frankly the “demoted” regional ACC sounds a lot more fun than moving to the big 10 provided streaming games remains as accessible.
 
One commentary I heard is that part of the ACC's problem is Miami and to a lesser extent, VaTech, failing to meet expectations. When Miami joined, they were put into the division opposite Free shoes and were supposed to compete for the ACC title every year. That hasn't happened. Wake has more ACC football championships than Miami.
 
Here's the latest from Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports and, as usual, it's not good news for the NCAA, the ACC and other P4/5 conferences and their member schools. If the terms of a House case settlement described in this article become real, it's hard to imagine that AD Currie can keep his promise to have Wake "compete at the highest level" of college sports.

I wonder what Wente will think when she sees the document with these proposed terms. Bye-bye campus space plan update and shiny new Baity St. office building. Put a new coat of paint on the walls of Tribble and make the best of it.


AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. — If they reject a proposed settlement offer, officials from the NCAA and power conferences stand to face a catastrophic $20 billion in back damages as well as risking a bankruptcy filing, according to documents obtained by Yahoo Sports.

The two-page document was circulated among power conference presidents and administrators on Tuesday as ACC leaders met at their annual spring meetings in Florida. It details terms of a potential settlement in the House, Hubbard and Carter antitrust cases, a trio of legal challenges brought against the NCAA and its five power conferences seeking back pay for various athlete compensation elements.

The settlement, believed to be in the final stages of adoption, consists of three main concepts: billions in back damages; a new compensation model permitting schools to share as much as $22 million annually with athletes in a capped system; and an overhaul of the NCAA scholarship and roster structure.

The document outlines settlement concepts in detail as well as particulars around the new compensation model. It also provides university leaders with new information on hot-button topics such as how a settlement protects the NCAA from future legal challenges, Title IX’s application and the enforcement of booster-led collectives in a “new infrastructure.”

Documents specify, perhaps for the first time in writing, the total amount in back damages owed to athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) before the NCAA lifted NIL prohibitions in 2021.

The amount is $2.776 billion.

The NCAA is responsible for paying the amount over a 10-year period, roughly $277 million annually. About 60% of that will come from a reduction in distribution to its schools. The NCAA is responsible for closing the 40% gap through other means, such as reserves, other net incomes and a significant reduction in operating expenses of as much as $18 million annually...

...The document reveals unpublished details around an annual revenue-sharing cap that schools are permitted — not required — to distribute with athletes. The cap is 22% of an average of power conference school media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships.

The cap remains a fluid and unsettled figure, and one that will fluctuate over time as athletic department revenues increase. But a projected revenue cap in Year 1 (presumably, fall 2025) is being shared with multiple college leaders of about $21 million...

...The settlement isn’t perfect, as the document notes.

It does not protect the NCAA and conference from future lawsuits brought by state attorneys general, does not preempt state NIL or revenue-sharing laws and offers no real ruling on Title IX’s application in such a compensation model.

Title IX “remains at the campus level to be applied,” the document notes. Jeffrey Kessler, another plaintiff attorney in the case, believes the Title IX issue will eventually be resolved in the courtroom.

“The courts will decide,” he told Yahoo Sports. “It doesn’t impact us. If we have a settlement, we’ll negotiate a system in which athletes will be compensated. The degree in which Title IX applies will be determined [by the courts].”

At the end of it all is a steep price tag — as much as $300 million per school over the 10-year settlement agreement. That figure assumes a school (1) meets a revenue distribution cap of $21 million; (2) $2 million in withheld NCAA distribution for back damages; and (3) as much as $10 million in additional scholarship costs related to an expansion of sport-specific roster sizes.

...For many school administrators, sticker shock exists. The $30 million price tag, a startling figure for an industry that has only provided athletes with mostly non-cash resources, is about 20% of the average athletic department budget of public schools in the ACC, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top