Schmack mostly gets my Texas theory, but I'll go one better.
I'm imagining Clemson and Florida State making the jump, then Texas whispering to Oklahoma: "there, we shored up yer football, now we'll go to the B10." (Or, if you just saw Lash's comments on Nebraska, consider Texas in the ACC)
They've merely demonstrated that they're the big ego in that B12 room. They've also all but publicly flirted with the Pac-12 and Big 10. That's the real hazard of getting in bed with them. Of course, Big East schools face bigger hazards at the moment. I'm not so sure the same isn't true of the ACC, and maybe that conference would consider Texas and not harm LHN.
But there's no reason FOR Clemson or Florida State to make the jump.
Is the level of football better in the Big 12? Yes.
Does that matter? No. The dollars do. The ACC's deal is going to be about the same or more than the Big 12. And it should be. The football might be better, but the Big 12 has 38 million people in its footprint. The ACC has 86 million. And that's going to translate to a TV deal richer than they deserve from a football standpoint.
The Big 12 is geographically placed in the middle of the country, where they can be picked by every other BCS conference. The flirting between the Pac-12 and Texas and Oklahoma, the Longhorn Network... and the ability to replenish from the Big East should the SEC or Big Ten raid... anyone in the ACC would respond to a Big 12 invite with a "Uh, we're good, thanks."
This is not necessarily a true statement that ACC schools would make the same as Big 12 schools.
This would make the ACC deal somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 million dollars per school if true.
This would indicate each ACC school will get considerable less dollars compared to the 19 plus million dollars the proposed Big 12 will get for each of the 10 schools if the Big 12 accepts the Fox and ESPN deal extended out to 2025.
What gets complicated in these projections is how much could the Big 12 could generate additionally if Clemson and Florida State were included as the 11 and 12 school of the Big 12.
First up you have to consider 20 million dollar exit fee for each school to bolt for the Big 12. That is a onetime exit fee of 40 million dollars. Not necessarily pocket change, however could be paid by boasters of both schools.
Several Florida state supporters have been very unhappy with recent ACC expansion which included basketball schools of Syracuse and to some extent Pitt.
I am not totally convinced that Clemson and Florida State would not jump to the Big 12 if there were many more millions of dollars to make from such a move.
Yes, we've learned that for every school, it's always about the money. But it's also about the security of money for the longterm.
It's $3 million a year for the length of the Big 12 contract. 2025, that's 13 years. Well, it would take two to move, so 11 years. That's $33 million more, (plus the Big 12 Tournament game and any increase in TV deal based on new members). FSU would bring some new money, Clemson not so much.
Throw in the exit fee for $20 million, and it's $1 million more per year for 13 years.
However, the STABILITY PIECE is the key part here in my opinion. The Big 12 is far less stable than the ACC.
The entire Big 12 is the mercy of the University of Texas. It sound crazy, but their ability to get a TV contract depends on market and fan interest, and Texas delivers two top eight markets, and four Top 40 markets. Take that away and what kind of TV deal are they getting? What did we talk about in terms of fallout during the last Pac-16 rumors: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State were headed to the Big East/Mountain West. That's exhibit A for "Texas makes the Big 12 a power conference" (from a TV standpoint).
So, if you're Florida State or Clemson, why would you jump into a league that's solely dependent on one member.
The natural response is "Well, where's Texas going?" But they're always going to have suitors (from coast to coast) with the Pac-12, Big Ten and to a lesser extent, the SEC.
Now, I don't think Texas is going to go anywhere. With LHN, they could basically let everyone else leave them for power conferences, pick up smaller schools from CUSA/MWC/Sun Belt, and those guys would be happy to get the table scraps and have Texas on the schedule at home every other year.
With 14 members, the ACC can survive a raid and replenish from the Big East/CUSA/MWC with very little drop off. Losing FSU would hurt. But the Big 12 is a shell of its former self without Texas.
This is still a conference where YOUR WORD wasn't good enough as a sign of good faith, you had to sign over your TV rights for six years as collateral. (Which also makes that $3 million difference only guaranteed for THREE years, not 11. That's $9 million more total guaranteed -- and it costs you $20 million to get it. Not to mention that the ACC is a "equal revenue sharing" league for NCAA revenue. Since the ACC went to 12 teams: 82 NCAA shares (Not counting 26 earned from Pitt/SU). The remaining Big 12 teams: 57 shares (WVU has earned 16 in that span). That would offset the TV deals a little bit as well.
You'd be taking a very large risk moving from the ACC to Big 12. I don't think you make a move unless it's clearly a better situation. Long term, the ACC is more stable and more likely to continue earning big revenue, while the Big 12 has potential for larger revenue, it also has the potential for catastrophe.
Last year only the Pac 12, SEC, and Big Ten could safely claim solid stability of all the BCS conferences.
I am adding the Big 12 to the stability list this year with the signing of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV rights respectively and especially if these rights gets extended out to 2025.
The ACC continues to be venerable to raids. The only reason Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC is because the ACC was planning on a losing couple teams to the SEC. Everyone does not understand how close the SEC came to adding Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M and Missouri last year. The Pac 12 decision to remain at 12 basically put a stop in the 16 team conference movement.
There is a reason the ACC changed the exit fees to 20 million dollars. Money is the reason schools could leave the ACC for other leagues. The Big 12 has a different issue which needed to ensure teams did not bolt for other leagues. The signing of tier 1 and tier 2 rights to the Big 12 was not so much about money and more to ensure schools did not bolt for other issues and concerns. LHN comes to mind for one of those concerns.
The only way the ACC can truly fill safe from future raids if Notre Dame somehow has to join a league with changes to the BCS and Notre Dame can help bring the revenue sharing especially for football up to comparables with the other top BCS leagues. With Notre Dame sliding further with the school’s football reputation, Notre Dame may not help that much in the future if changes do not occur very soon.
The major issue within the ACC is football strength compared to the SEC and the Big 12.
It is no secret and the TV execs understand and realize the ACC has been very down in football for years. Florida State was not holding up the league and reason Miami and company were brought on board with the original Big East raid.. The problem with this plan and you can’t necessarily blame the ACC, Miami dropped to level of Florida State and the plan was to have Florida State and Miami together elevate the league to a more comparative football league. We are talking SEC and Big 12 type level for football.
I have stated this many times, the ACC expanded for markets and basketball with Pitt and Syracuse when they could have tried to get WVU and/or TCU or both to sure up football strength. If you did not want those two schools, maybe try to raid another league with schools that had a better football reputation. Louisville and Cincinnati have been better in football the last 10 years compared to Pitt and Syracuse. South Florida is progressing better than either of Pitt and Syracuse for football.
The SEC could afford to expand into Missouri because football strength is basically at the top of the BCS conferences. In other words you have a product in football that is worth marketing to the those markets you have for your TV contract negotiations.
Would it have really mattered that soft drink maker Coke had all those existing markets if the company had continued to market new Coke and had not been smart enough to revert back to making Coke Classic.
While it is critical to have markets it is much more important to have a good product for those markets. At the moment the ACC does not have a good product for markets outside of the ACC or ACC markets shared with other BCS leagues that are much better in football. I believe this will be reflected in the conference ability to negotiate TV contracts and possibly prevent defections from schools that may want to play in a much stronger football league
One thing to factor in...ACC is #2 in basketball viewership overall...and #3 in football viewership overall. The Big 12 is #4 in hoops, #4 in football. Our perception is that the ACC product is weak based on things like BCS standings. But from a "sales" standpoint, it's pretty dominant over the Big 12, Pac-12, and Big East.