College Breakups and Shakeups

The gladiatorial pit with suits that passes for major college athletics has been quite active this summer. In the past month we’ve seen the implosion of a hundred-year-old conference, membership raids, geographic insanity, posturing and threats from within leagues, forecasts of doom, and pleas for national oversight. And that doesn’t even touch on the pie fight between the NCAA and Jim Harbaugh. 

At last count, the Pac-12 Conference was getting affairs in order in advance of last rites. The Big Ten is at 14 schools on the way to 18 and will stretch from New Jersey to Los Angeles and Seattle. The Big 12 is up to 11 schools, headed for 14, and will run from Florida to Ohio to Utah and Arizona. Two of the primo academic and athletic institutions in the nation, Stanford and Cal-Berkeley, are soon to be homeless, though there’s a case to be made that the ACC should partake of the geographic mad-libs and welcome both. 

Of course, all of this is tied to feeding troughs, specifically TV money and revenue distribution from each league’s respective broadcast contracts. The Big Ten and Southeastern Conference are by far the wealthiest leagues. In 2021-22, the most recent year records are available, the Big Ten disbursed $58.8 million to each member school athletic department – several million less to new-ish members Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. The SEC distributed $49.9 million per school. Both numbers are expected to mushroom as the Big Ten adds Southern Cal and UCLA, while the SEC adds Texas and Oklahoma, and both conferences have new TV contracts in the next couple of years. Meanwhile, the ACC distributed approximately $39.4 million per school. That number will increase, but only incrementally, and the league’s present TV deal runs through 2035-36. The Big 12 distributed between $42-44.9 million to its members in 2022, though that number is likely to be diluted as the league adds BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati and Houston for the coming year and several Pac-12 refugees ahead. 

Unlike the other three conferences, the B12 does not have its own dedicated TV network. That revenue gap is untenable, say a handful of schools not in the Big Ten or SEC, and will make it increasingly difficult to compete for championships. Though I’d argue that supposedly “underfunded” Clemson and Florida State remain a heck of a lot closer to competing for football championships than Indiana and Mississippi State, no matter how much more money the latter bring in. 

Revenue uncertainty and the widening gap prompted the current round of realignment. The Pac-12, by most accounts, botched its broadcast negotiations and network distribution and whatever plans existed in swift and stunning fashion. A buddy and former newspaper colleague opined that the Pac-12’s demise will be studied in business classes and have books written about it. Colorado began the exodus, opting for the Big 12. The Big Ten, eschewing collegiality and tradition, then poached Washington and Oregon. Smelling blood, the Big 12 threw lifelines to Arizona, Arizona State and Utah. Suddenly, the Pac-12 was down to four, and whatever collective comes next is anyone’s guess. 

The SEC remained on the sidelines this go ‘round, with Texas and Oklahoma in the bullpen that brings membership to 16, but rest assured its accounting beavers are busily vetting and parsing myriad expansion combinations as the Big Hats contemplate their portion of world domination. 

Which brings us to the ACC. There’s been no movement, but plenty of noise and smoke. Florida State, notably, is and has been the whiniest kid in the playpen. The Seminoles have believed for years that they and their football program haven’t been sufficiently rewarded for carrying water for the conference, that their accomplishments and profile merit a larger piece of the revenue pie. 

To be fair, several schools have proposed some kind of performance-based revenue sharing plan (the ACC presently distributes equal shares to all members, save Notre Dame because of its football independence). ACC brass hasn’t signed off on a tiered distribution plan, but will implement a so-called “success initiative” for football and men’s hoops – extra millions here and there for good work. That doesn’t mollify the Seminoles, whose prez said earlier this month that the school would have to seriously consider leaving the ACC without revenue overhaul, to a chorus of ‘amens’ and tough talk from the Board of Trustees. 

The proper response is: and go where? The Seminoles fancy themselves a national brand attractive to all, but they bring nothing to the SEC that the conference doesn’t already possess. Also, folks in Gainesville might like a word about the prospect of elevating a state rival with no commensurate value. The Big Ten may want a presence in Florida, but it’s about to be an 18-team, coast-to-coast conference and likely wants to acclimate to its new footprint. In addition, Big Ten schools take their academic chops seriously (most are certified members of the American Association of Universities, which signifies lofty research and innovation tracks), and FSU is not credentialed within that group. The Big 12 would be a lateral move, at best, and likely a step down in terms of revenue distribution, given its own expansion. 

And then there’s the cost of departure from the ACC. The exit fee is three times the average annual distribution, so three years at $40 million per is $120 million. Schools also signed off on something called Grant of Rights, which transfers a school’s media rights to the league. That agreement runs the length of the TV deal, through 2036. All told, bolting the ACC would cost north of $500 million. Unless the Saudis decide that American college football would be a swell complement to professional golf and soccer, and a school located within shouting distance of the Redneck Riviera would be a dandy cornerstone, Florida State is going nowhere. 

Florida State’s lawyers have studied the Grant of Rights for loopholes, as have other ACC schools, as everyone attempts to read the tea leaves and gird for what’s next. Short of a mass walkout, highly unlikely bordering on reckless, the league will remain intact for the foreseeable future. It’s the “foreseeable” part that’s the mystery. 

Enter Stanford and Cal Berkeley and SMU, objects of recent expansion discussion by ACC officials. The two California schools will soon need a home and would like to remain power conference competitors, while SMU has had its nose pressed against the major conference football window for years. 

Geographically, none of the three make an ounce of sense in the ACC. But the good sense ship sailed long ago. It’s about conference viability and money. Each new member means an additional year’s revenue payout, according to the TV contract. The ACC Network suddenly has footholds in California and Texas, which will bring in additional revenue, depending on ESPN’s negotiations with providers in those states. The new members won’t receive full shares of annual payouts for several years, and SMU, with its deep-pocketed donor base, reportedly offered to take zero conference money for at least five years. All of that could add up to as much as $200 million extra for the league over a number of years, money that might translate to several million per school each year or be funneled into the success initiative. 

According to multiple reports, the ACC fell one vote shy of the 75 percent (12 of 15) required for expansion, though discussions remain ongoing. Reasons for the rejection are unclear, sitting somewhere between geography and travel concerns, and more selfish motives that may allow more flexibility for the next round of realignment. Among the arguments by expansion proponents is “safety in numbers” – that the larger and more stable the conference is, the better positioned it will be if or when the next shakeup occurs. A stronger safety net for the Wake Forests, Boston Colleges and Georgia Techs and less attractive expansion targets. ACC Commish Jim Phillips, among others, has taken the position that, while they don’t distribute Big Ten or SEC money, there’s nothing wrong with being No. 3, and it can’t be all about accounting. 

If nothing else, this summer has further confirmed the hypocrisy that major college athletics is an “amateur” endeavor and that athlete welfare is a priority. It’s a cash grab that will see more kids traveling across multiple time zones to compete. The solution is as simple as it will be difficult to execute. As others have suggested, top shelf football needs to separate from the overall college athletic model. It needs its own governance, its own TV negotiations and contracts, its own scheduling. Smart money points to a future model comprised of a super league or two, and the top 50 or so programs, with everyone else finding their own level. 

We’re already part way there with the SEC and Big Ten. If they want to play coast-to-coast, big-boy football and the money’s there (which it apparently is), go for it. But don’t drag the rest of the athletic department along. Permit the other sports to play more regional and reasonable schedules. That’s liable to be a hard ask for athletic directors and school prezes and conference commissioners, to cede some level of control over their biggest moneymaker. It won’t fix college athletics, but it might restore a sliver of sanity. These days, that may be the most we can hope for.