I was looking at revenue from beyond the TV contracts. From
in the revenue section, it says that conferences get 1/2 the revenue based on performance in the past 6 NCAA tournaments. Looking at the reference used there:
It shows the Big East getting $16.8 mil and the ACC getting $15.3 mil. And these years are from 2002-2007, which only include part of the existence of the 16-team Big East, the first year of which I believe they got 8 teams in the tournament. If the Big East can sustain some of that long term success their revenues will likely go up, lets say to $2 million above the ACC. I think the ACC would like to increase their annual revenue by $2 million.
Also, I put up those 4 schools just as an example. If there is a better combination that might work, to bring the ACC contract up by $10 million-$12 million, tell me. But just because teams are in a shared market doesn't stop conferences from going after them. If the Big East went after DePaul and Marquette (shared with Big Ten teams), why wouldn't the ACC go after some of the Big East markets? Perhaps the ACC could go for DePaul and Marquette?
There's more to the story with the BE taking Marquette and Depaul. The took them to essentially balance out the BE with 8 FB and BB schools. They are also a link to ND and they also have some BB history and they get good attendance.
The BB credits are a good way for the BB schools to earn money as you note. I was only looking at it from the perspective of TV money simply because as the BE is showing with 16 schools so far, the NCAA doesn't look kindly to the possibility of giving the BE 8 bids. In addition, now that you have 4 more schools, your NCAA conference credit per school for the conference must increase to account for these 4 new schools.
So, if the ACC was averaging 16 units for a 12 team conference (I don't remember of hand how many units they average), they MUST now average 21.33 credits per year because of the two new teams or an increase of 5.3 credits so you are essentially going to have to AVERAGE a sweet 16 and round of 32 increase in your BB teams per year.
Also, I said no more ALL sports schools because it would further dilute the BCS revenue in FB if more schools were in. I'm not sure if the ACC would have to split BCS revenue with their non-FB playing members (does the Big East do so with theirs?).
The ACC would not split the FB revenue with the BB-only schools. Same as the BE.
It doens't 'necessarily' dilute the pool of money. There are ways of getting around the revenue limitations by expanding from 12 to 14 - especially in the North East. Think about it...... I'll give you a hint.....Look no further than what the Big Conference to the West of the BE that can't count correctly is doing ;)