The ACC should raid Big XII, not Big East

With sources reporting that Oklahoma and Texas (along with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech) are in discussions to soon turn the Pac-12 into the Pac-16, it looks like the Big XII will soon become extinct.

It’s hard to believe that one of the two original superconferences will become irrelevant sooner than the ACC or Big East.

Think about it: Within a few years of the Big XII forming in 1996 — when remnants of the once-proud Southwestern conference merged with the Big Eight — it was obvious that the Big XII would partner with the SEC as college football’s elite. Nebraska won its third national title of the decade in 1997 (although 1994 and 1995 were as part of the Big Eight) and would play for another in 2001 (loss to Miami); Oklahoma, rejuvenated under Bob Stoops after a decade of mediocrity, won the national title in 2000; Texas was again on the rise under Mack Brown; and Kansas State under Bill Snyder had become a perrenial Top 10 team towards the late 90s.

Yet, 15 years later, Oklahoma — arguably the best overall program of the past decade — will determine if the Big XII will soon become defunct. Oklahoma president David Boren riled up his Big XII counterparts when he said “multiple conferences” have shown interest in the Sooners, and he plans to make a decision about Oklahoma’s future as part of the Big XII very soon (possibly as soon as this week). The dominoes started — this round, anyway — last year when Nebraska and Colorado, both looking for better deals away from the suddenly Texas-centric Big XII (which actually includes Oklahoma), left for the Big Ten and Pac-12, respectively. Texas A&M has officially announced it will leave (likely for the SEC), and we’ve all believed that Texas would eventually pursue football independence in order to capitalize on its Longhorns Network (produced by ESPN, naturally).

Even without Texas A&M, the Big XII could possibly work out an arrangement to remain viable, especially if they return to 12 members with a combination of Air Force, BYU, Houston, SMU, TCU (set to join the Big East in 2012) and/or Boise State; with Notre Dame, the conference could likely survive with 10. But it’s inarguable that the Big XII can survive without Oklahoma and Texas, at least not as part of the BCS.

As for “multiple conferences,” in addition to the Pac-12, the SEC has also probably contacted Oklahoma about becoming its 14th member, along with Texas A&M; and the Big Ten could be looking to re-unite the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. If/when the Oklahoma and Texas schools leave the Big XII, then the rise of four 16-team superconferences is inevitable, and the remaining Big XII teams will immediately be in play, as well as several Big East and ACC teams as the SEC and Big Ten look to solidify their positions against one another. Syracuse (“New York’s College Team” as a banner pronounced during the Wake game), Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and perhaps even Maryland and Boston College seem to be in play for the Big Ten, while the SEC would probably look first to Missouri, and then maybe Florida State, Virginia Tech and possibly even a North Carolina school.

The uncertainty: how will it all play out, and how will the fallout affect the relevance of the ACC as part of the BCS?

Personally, I don’t think the right response is solely raiding the Big East again this time around. Instead, the ACC should be proactive: As I suggested recently, the ACC should start by looking west to Oklahoma and its Texas TV markets and recruiting inroads, and then go from there (this may include Missouri and/or one or more Big East members). Geography, rivalries, culture and tradition no longer matter, at least not to the conference presidents, and expansion is entirely football-centric; basketball revenue is significantly less than football.

College football TV revenues (including the BCS) are dictating a new structure for college football. The simple reality is, the cozy southeastern basketball conference most of us grew up with will soon have to look very different in order to survive, and the ACC leadership needs to recognize what it will take to remain relevant in the BCS and maximize the potential to re-negotiate the next TV deal. What I expect to eventually see is a structure with less emphasis on divisions; when you consider that a 16-team conference — even with nine conference games — would only have two interdivisional games available each year, it may be a decade between seeing other teams within your own conference. But we can be certain that logistics are peripheral to the mega-millions in TV revenues driving this.

Perhaps the Sooners wouldn’t even consider the ACC, but I think pursuing Oklahoma would be the right place for the ACC to start the expansion process.

About LRM

Charter member of the Lunatic Fringe and a fan, loyal to a fault.

ACC & Other

40 Responses to The ACC should raid Big XII, not Big East

  1. codebrown 09/05/2011 at 10:51 AM #

    Why does this feel like we’re going to be the fat girl on prom night? One of the many reasons why I hate college football outside of our very own. I hope mark Cuban gets the funds and blow this whole thing up.

  2. Astral Rain 09/05/2011 at 10:54 AM #

    It could be 18-team superconferences instead of 16.

    In fact with 72 teams, I could even see them withdrawing from the NCAA and reforming into 8 9-team conferences.

  3. wolfpack99 09/05/2011 at 11:44 AM #

    The only logical outcome is a merger between the Big East and the ACC. There is no doubt that the Big 12 is doomed despite what its current members say and even they will start deserting the sinking ship before long. Oklahoma in the ACC makes no sense, its a geographical mismatch just as is TCU in the Big East. When all is said and done I think some Big 12 schools will be in the Pac-whatever (OU, OSU, Baylor, Texas Tech) and the others will end up in the Big 10 (ISU, KU, K-State, Mizzou) with Texas going independent. It’s the only scenario that makes any sense.

  4. NOT A FAN OF BLUE 09/05/2011 at 11:47 AM #

    Ditto codebrown … but I’ll take it a bit further:
    Quoting Bono, “we stoop so low to reach so high”. I hate to sound nerdy, too conservative or hoplessly out-of-date; but I would rather the ACC become the next Ivy League, than attempt to keep up with the Jonses’ in the so-called “big-time” conferences.
    Give me a federation of schools who endeavor to run things the right way. As long as I can keep my regional rivalries, the ESPN hype-machine can kiss it.

  5. highstick 09/05/2011 at 11:53 AM #

    Can you say the creation of the PCD? That’s the new division lower than the BCS called the “Pattycake Division” of the NCAA. We can always join that..

  6. LRM 09/05/2011 at 12:01 PM #

    “Oklahoma in the ACC makes no sense, its a geographical mismatch just as is TCU in the Big East.

    I’m not saying any of this makes sense, but we’ve got to stop viewing it through the lens of geography, because that’s becoming irrelevant. Fort Worth to Storrs is about the same distance as Boston to Miami. Oklahoma and Texas are no closer to the heart of the Pac-12 than the heart of the ACC. Got to be pragmatic about it.

  7. Tampa-Pack 09/05/2011 at 12:02 PM #

    Without sounding completely stupid, how is it that Texas can go Independent, but everyone else has to be in one of these 16+ member super-conferences. I understand with their influence they can rewrite the rules to give them an eligible path to the championship game, but couldn’t a number of other schools as well? Seems like all these big powers would want to become independent to avoid having to play a conference championship game and all, and the “second tier” would have to win their conference. To compare to a tournament format these top independents would get bye, and everyone else would have to win their conference for a shot. That part has always struck me as odd, that Texas is going on their own, and everyone else is fighting for a conference. Not saying a school like ours could go independent, but seems like there are 5-10 teams that could…

  8. Tampa-Pack 09/05/2011 at 12:05 PM #

    And following up on my last post, why couldn’t these 5-10 teams go completely independent, drop the NCAA, and basically hold their own semi-pro league. They would get all the best recruits and would basically be an NFL junior league. Who cares if the NCAA also awards a football championship – everyone will know (and therefore be most interested in) this 5-10 team league.

    Not saying I’m for it, but don’t see why those 10ish power schools would need to share with anyone.

  9. old13 09/05/2011 at 12:21 PM #

    “Oklahoma in the ACC makes no sense, its a geographical mismatch . . .”

    It’s about 1,200 miles from Norman to Raleigh; about 1,100 miles to Tucson; about 1,600 miles to Palo Alto. OU seems as relavant to the ACC geographically as it does the PAC -__ to me. I’d think Mizzo would be a more likely candidate, though.

  10. LRM 09/05/2011 at 12:27 PM #

    “Without sounding completely stupid, how is it that Texas can go Independent, but everyone else has to be in one of these 16+ member super-conferences. I understand with their influence they can rewrite the rules to give them an eligible path to the championship game, but couldn’t a number of other schools as well?”

    Anyone could go independent and still be a part of the NCAA, but only a handful — *maybe* five total — can do it and still make any money. Notre Dame and Texas as independents each have the power to negotiate lucrative TV deals and also a seat at the BCS table; BYU has its own network but no seat at the BCS table.

    And following up on my last post, why couldn’t these 5-10 teams go completely independent, drop the NCAA, and basically hold their own semi-pro league. They would get all the best recruits and would basically be an NFL junior league. Who cares if the NCAA also awards a football championship – everyone will know (and therefore be most interested in) this 5-10 team league.

    These teams *could* do that, but they could only play each other. There’d be no money in it. It would also affect every sport, not just football; I’m pretty sure you can’t be a partial member of the NCAA, and NCAA teams wouldn’t be allowed to play non-NCAA teams.

  11. IMFletcherWolf 09/05/2011 at 12:30 PM #

    Geography matters. The travel costs for Oklahoma, if they joined the ACC, would skyrocket (vs staying in the Big XII or joining the Big Ten). This would be a factor for them.

    edit: I recognize the costs for OK would be similar in the ACC as they would in the PAC-12.

    Same for the current ACC schools who would have to travel out there. I’m not talking about football, but rather all the other sports. The costs to send the State volleyball team to OK vs Clemson, for instance, would be much more. Is it worth it?

  12. wolfpack99 09/05/2011 at 12:31 PM #

    @LRM @old13 I understand that the distances may not be that different, but it just seems to me that Oklahoma would have a more natural rivalry with USC than NC State or Miami. OU just strikes me as being a “western” team…I do think geography has to play some role. It’s a pointless argument anyway, I don’t see any attraction for OU to join the ACC if the PAC-whatever come calling.

    @Tampa-Pack Yes, it is about having the power (and money, fan base) to go your own way. Notre Dame was successful with it for a while (until they started losing) and Texas could probably do it, but again it all boils down to winning.

  13. Tampa-Pack 09/05/2011 at 1:21 PM #

    LRM – Thanks, I see what you’re saying. I guess I was thinking if it became 10 or 12 (or 16) teams, those teams would just play each other – maybe even somehow as a round robin tournament or something/seeding for a top 4/6 playoff. I think there might be money in something like that as every game would essentially be a playoff game, similar to the NFL. They should be able to draw the money that those schools were pulling in as part of a conference, if not more. Plus if it were enough of the big schools, the networks wouldn’t really have to pay anyone else, because few people, outside of alumni or local fans would care anymore. I would really hate to see something like this happen, but could see it becoming a possibility – maybe just limited by the number of teams that could pull it off. Seems like if they could limit the teams that they had to share the pot with, they would. Even half the money divided among 5/10/16 teams would be more per school that dividing among the 64 teams in super conferences.

    I guess all the teams they field would have to do the same – basketball, baseball, etc since they would withdrawal from the NCAA.

  14. Lock 09/05/2011 at 1:22 PM #

    What codebrown said. I’ll always be out there cheering for our boys on the field, but I am quickly coming to resent college football for what it’s doing to college basketball. Namely, marginalizing it.

  15. old13 09/05/2011 at 1:45 PM #

    wolfpack99, I understand your point, and it could be. BUT the OU culture would fit in better with any N.C. team than it would with any west coast team IMO. OK is about as down home as one can get, while the west coast is mostly another planet. I’ve known/worked with several Sooners, (Mizzo) Tigers and Cowboys and would really like any of them in the ACC. (After all, Bob Lee’s wife and daughter are Mizzo grads!)

  16. Tampa-Pack 09/05/2011 at 2:00 PM #

    Either way, this expansion is going to kill a lot of the traditions that make college football so enjoyable. Going to away games is pretty much going to no longer be an option – only for the super wealthy maybe. Very few are going to be any kind of drive able distance.

  17. LRM 09/05/2011 at 2:07 PM #

    “@LRM @old13 I understand that the distances may not be that different, but it just seems to me that Oklahoma would have a more natural rivalry with USC than NC State or Miami. OU just strikes me as being a “western” team…I do think geography has to play some role. It’s a pointless argument anyway, I don’t see any attraction for OU to join the ACC if the PAC-whatever come calling”

    That’s a fair point, I agree.

  18. LRM 09/05/2011 at 2:17 PM #

    “Either way, this expansion is going to kill a lot of the traditions that make college football so enjoyable. Going to away games is pretty much going to no longer be an option – only for the super wealthy maybe. Very few are going to be any kind of drive able distance.”

    That’s certainly a reality. But the money is in TV, not ticket sales, which hardly cover operational costs.

    I think you’ll see an emphasis on mini-divisions within conferences, to keep the core traditional rivalries alive. For instance, Georgia-Auburn and Alabama-Tennessee will probably continue. But it may be many years between meetings for, say, Tennessee-LSU, for example.

  19. wolfpacker 09/05/2011 at 2:31 PM #

    The acc has a real big problem…the commissioner only cares about unc. He’s a joke and he’s gotta GO.

  20. wolfpack99 09/05/2011 at 3:03 PM #

    @LRM You are exactly right…it’s all about the TV money which is the profit engine driving all of the realignments. Ticket sales are a wash from a profitability standpoint. It’s all about who can get on TV the most.

    Having lived in Ohio for many years, IMO the Big 10 is the model as far as how to run a conference. The revenue sharing, the TV network, the focus on maintaining old and creating new rivalries, etc..the ACC should take a page from the Big 10’s book..

  21. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 09/05/2011 at 3:12 PM #

    Oklahoma in the Atlantic Coast Conference? Would Oklahoma be placed in the Atlantic or Coastal division?

    I guess the conference could just become the AC-14 (pronounced: ak-14) with the hopes that 20 years from now no one will remember what the AC stood for.

    Maybe the best solution is to create a super-conference with the SEC. Create 4 divisions and a four team football playoff for the championship. The Southeast and Atlantic Coast Conference or the SEACC (pronounced Sea-See) or maybe the ACE Conference for Atlantic Coast and East Conference

  22. Tampa-Pack 09/05/2011 at 3:23 PM #

    ^Thats a nice idea, SEC could take the southernmost 6, and get a superconference of 18, with some strong programs added to it. Of course would ruin the “gentlemen’s agreement”, but would make sense in many ways

  23. LRM 09/05/2011 at 3:24 PM #

    Conference names mean nothing anymore.

    The Big Ten has 12 teams, the Big XII has 10 teams, the Pac-12 has four landlocked teams, the Big East stretches as far west as Milwaukee and Chicago (and soon Fort Worth), the Southeastern Conference will soon be in Texas and probably Missouri.

  24. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 09/05/2011 at 3:57 PM #

    ^^”New-speak” I don’t like it.

    How the hell do institutions of higher learning allow a conference to be called the Big Ten when it has 12 teams? Any idea why Americans do poorly in math or geography?

    Just because the university leaders of the 1990’s and the aughts didn’t respect the meaning of words, that does not mean those that are in power today have to follow their lead.

    Why the heck don’t we just turn all these locally supported, “globally engaged” tax-payer supported universities into the WWE and be done with it?

  25. graywolf 09/05/2011 at 4:47 PM #

    wolfpacker Says:
    September 5th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
    The acc has a real big problem…the commissioner only cares about unc. He’s a joke and he’s gotta GO.

    BINGO!

Leave a Reply