fighting muskie wrote:
If I'm the ACC I'd be a little worried about the Big 12 drying up the pool of potential expansion candidates. I would consider approaching UConn the same deal that Notre Dame has. Let them come in for Olympic sports and officially be independent in football but with an arrangement to play 5 football games a year against ACC competition. This gives the ACC another very valuable basketball brand and also some flexibility without adding a 15th school for football without a full membership commitment from Notre Dame.
I don't really think the ACC should worry about "expansion candidates" drying up since they have 15 full members. At the end of the day, it's "Does this candidate actually bring something to the table that makes it worth splitting the pie another way?"
I think we're at or past the apex of "potential earning power with an additional member vs loss of value to inventory with such a big conference"
Do you get more money from a cut of rights adding the new teams' market, or more money from the GAMES you're giving up because you can no longer play the marquee teams in your conference at home every season (Duke/Kansas basketball; Oklahoma/Florida State football, etc)?
If you look at the Big East expansion discussion on a Big East message board, the smartest people (arguing against me) all see that:
- adding teams probably gets them two more NCAA bids
- The double-round robin DOES actually hurt their 7-8-9 teams NCAA chances
- Expansion kills the double-round robin, and that's a bad decision for them from an individual revenue standpoint, even if it increases their TV/NCAA checks slightly, the value of guaranteed home games vs everyone in the league is important to them.