After running around online continuously trying to explain what today's ACC expansion means, I'd figure I'd just create a one-stop shop for all of this madness.
NOW, WHAT HAPPENED?
The ACC extended offers to California, Stanford and SMU to join the ACC beginning August 1st, 2024. All three schools accepted. Cal and Stanford will be leaving the dying Pac-12 while SMU is leaving the American Athletic Conference. Cal and Stanford will only be getting 30% of the TV revenue shares for the next nine years while SMU will get 0% during that time. The money that would go to them will end up in a pot to be distributed to the current 15 members for various goals they achieve.
WHO IN THE ACC WANTED THIS?
Of the 15 ACC members, Boston College, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest were always on board. Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina were against it. NC State initially was against it, but swung to a yes vote this week. NC State's vote was the 12th vote they needed to add the three new schools.
WHY DOES CAL AND STANFORD WANT THIS?
Cal and Stanford were two of four schools left behind as 8 of the Pac-12 schools are ditching the conference for greener pastures next summer. This was a desperation move by Cal and Stanford to stay in a power conference instead of either a) going independent, b) going to the Mountain West Conference or c) attempting to merge the Pac-12 and MWC to form a new Pac-12. Even though they agreed to lesser revenue from the ACC than what they've been getting from the Pac-12, it is better than the other options.
WHY DOES SMU WANT THIS?
SMU took advantage of this craziness by sneaking its way into a power conference. They knew that the ACC would want a sort of weigh station between its current geographic footprint and the Bay Area and got in. This is quietly a major move for a program that has spent a long time trying to come back from the death penalty of the 1980s and the collapse of the Southwest Conference in the 1990s.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FOOTBALL?
We don't know what the scheduling model will look like quite yet, but ACC commissioner Jim Phillips explained that the current 14 football schools will only have to travel to California/Stanford just once every other year. So you visit Cal one year and then two years later travel to Stanford. Meanwhile, Cal and Stanford will have to travel three or four times (depending on who hosts the Cal-Stanford game) each year. SMU's travel isn't considered as treacherous.
The ACC enters this season under a new model where divisions are ditched and schools play a 3-5-5 model, meaning every school plays three rivals every season, they they'll play five other conference schools home/road for two years and then the other five schools home/road the following two years. Adding three schools (making 17 football schools) wildly throws this off. There is no word if the ACC is planning on adding one more school.
Nothing has been said about what that new model will be. Will the ACC expand to 9 conference games? Unlikely with their deal with Notre Dame and four ACC schools with SEC rivalry games.
As far as the programs the ACC is getting ... well it isn't good. Stanford has been solid but has fallen on hard times of late. They won just one game last season and struggles in the transfer portal era of college football since they can't just pluck anyone off the list due to their high academic standards. Cal has been middling for a while, though they've had their moments. SMU, who suffered the death penalty in the 1980s, has rebuilt their program into a respectable one. Still, none of these schools should challenge for an ACC title.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR BASKETBALL?
Scheduling is still up in their air. Currently with 15 basketball schools, the current format is a 20-game conference season where a school has two rivals (where they always play home and away), then plays four schools only at home, four schools only on the road, and four schools home and road ... with those three groups rotating.
With 18 basketball schools? Most likely the ACC would end up keeping the 20-game model with each school having three rivals (that they play home and away) and they they play 7 schools only at home and 7 schools only on the road. The ACC could decide to combine Stanford and Cal as one trip every other year for the current ACC schools (so North Carolina would travel to the Bay Area for a Thursday game at Stanford and then a Saturday game at Cal ... and then wouldn't have to go back for another two years). Or they could just have each ACC school take one Bay Area trip each season. Of course, the brunt of the travel will be on Stanford and Cal, but the ACC likely doesn't care since those two schools were desperate to get in.
On the court? Well, Cal and Stanford have had their success from time to time on the men's side while Stanford's women's team has been one of the better programs in the country and makes the ACC an even stronger women's hoops league. SMU isn't much.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR OTHER SPORTS?
Well, that's the tricky one. Other sports don't necessarily act like football and basketball. Phillips said that 14 of the ACC's 28 sports are played in a single-site format, like meets or tournaments. Others may have those issues, but remember how I phrased the basketball scheduling. Athletes may only have to make one or two trips over their collegiate career to either Cal or Stanford.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE ACC'S RELATIONSHIP WITH ESPN?
So by now you know that the ACC and ESPN have a broadcast rights deal through 2036. The ACC has also have its members under a Grant of Rights agreement for the same time frame, which means if anyone leaves the ACC, they will have to pay a hefty exit fee (rumored to be over $100M) and owes the ACC their home game television revenue until 2036. This agreement is what has both held the league together and been a thorn in the bigger program's side. While this ties everyone together for the next 14 years, it also means they are tied into a very low paying agreement for 14 years.
The ACC and ESPN has a pro-rata deal where if the ACC expands then ESPN must pay each new member the same amount as they are paying the current schools. So if all the schools were getting $40M a year each, then ESPN must pay $120M a year to the ACC for the new schools. As I've said, SMU is forgoing its share and Stanford and Cal will only get 30% of theirs, meaning of the $120M ESPN will pay extra now, the ACC will get to keep $96M for themselves, which the league plans on redistributing according to on and off field successes. What that looks like is unknown right now.
SO IS THIS A FORWARD THINKING MOVE BY THE ACC?
Very much so. Understand what the ACC is thinking right now. I just talked about the ACC's deal with ESPN. Well, if the ACC went below 14 members (which it would have if current schools find a path to leave) then ESPN can renegotiate their TV deal ... which would mean that ESPN would end up paying less for the rights. Most of the 11 schools who were for expansion will be stuck with that scenario, so they were willing to do almost anything to make sure the ACC didn't drop below 14 members. Right now, the "lesser thans" of the ACC don't want what is happening to Cal, Stanford, Oregon State and Washington State happening to them. They don't want that $40M a year dropping down significantly.
This also keeps the ACC's seat at the table for the College Football Playoff.
IS THIS THE END OF THIS FOR THE ACC?
Nope. Again, this is the ACC protecting itself long term. Rest assured that the ACC knows that at some point Florida State, Clemson and North Carolina will find a way out of the ACC and into the Big Ten or SEC ... and once they do Virginia, NC State and Miami won't be far behind them. This is more of a when than if. This will happen and the ACC is making sure it will have a conference and not end up like the Pac-12 ... even if that means the ACC will be a lesser league. If a mass exodus occurs, look for the ACC to keep adding schools ... like Tulane, UConn, Memphis, Appalachian State or South Florida.
The ACC won't look like this 18-school format for very long and both the ACC's front office and its members know this. Membership could be very fluid in the coming years.
What this has done is kept the ACC's future more like the Big 12 and less like the Pac-12.
SO WHAT DO I THINK ABOUT THIS EXPANSION?
Over two years ago, I wrote on this blog that I think the ACC should aggressively expand to the west coast. At that time, I said the ACC should add Cal, Stanford, Oregon, USC and UCLA. First off, that would be the first strike in this realignment scenario ... instead of the third strike after the Big Ten and Big 12 picked through the best parts of the Pac-12. Second, it would add the Pac-12's most valuable assets as well as attractive programs that could lure Notre Dame into some sort of stronger relationship with the ACC.
Instead, the ACC didn't strike ... and the UCLA and USC bolted for the Big Ten a year later. The ACC still didn't strike at adding Oregon, Washington and the two Bay Area schools when all were wobbly a month ago ... and the Big Ten got Oregon and Washington. By that time, the corner schools were off the table, too.
The ACC found reasons to not make those moves ... and all those reasons remain when they added Cal and Stanford today, but now they get the least valuable of those schools. While the expansion of Cal, Stanford and SMU was a necessary business decision, there's not much to like. This could have been such a bigger and better deal.
Also ... SMU gets lost in all this. I've been an ACC guy my entire life and you could have never convinced me that there would be a time that the ACC invited SMU to be a member of the conference. Sure, it seems like a cherry of a deal for the ACC since they extort money from ESPN that they don't have to give to SMU ... but it is SMU. Yeah, Dallas joins Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Miami, Atlanta and New York as a great market for the ACC but this isn't even about markets anymore.
This is a good move for the ACC as an entity. I understand why it is being done. I also understand that this move publicly showed the cracks in the foundation of this league. Clearly Florida State, Clemson and North Carolina are on a different path than the rest of the ACC and you will start to see a lot of movement from those three about finding a way out. Maybe not tomorrow or next year ... but it is coming. As a North Carolina fan, I know that the Tar Heels will be just fine no matter how this turns out. UNC is a very valuable brand that both the Big Ten and SEC would love to bring over to their conferences ... and when that happens, Carolina will reap the financial rewards. That isn't the case, though, for schools like Boston College, Wake Forest, Syracuse and others who really need the ACC to not break apart like the Pac-12 did last month.
As I said, I've been an ACC guy my whole entire life. I grew up in Charlotte in the hub of the ACC and where the conference is so beloved. It saddens me to know that this will end in some form or fashion in the next decade. Either North Carolina will not be part of the ACC anymore or the league will just look like some bastardized version of itself. While I'm not thrilled that this league now has Stanford, Cal and SMU as members, I'm happy that it could hold this thing together just a little bit longer. Make no mistake, this is a marriage of necessity more than one anyone wanted.
