Cal, Stanford, SMU make ACC weaker, geographically nonsensical

Cal and Stanford bring their rivalry to the ACC in 2024, whether you're ready for the West Coast additions or not. (Photo: Darren Yamashita / USATODAY)

by Ryan Kantor - Contributor - Sat Sep 02 13:11:03 GMT-04:00 2023

On August 29th, the ACC opened their new 27,650-square foot office on the 12th floor of Bank of America Tower in uptown Charlotte, where they expect to employ approximately 50 people. Interestingly, North Carolina politicians paid the ACC $15 million to stay in the state for the next 15 years, along with the promise of holding at least four men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and baseball tournaments in the state during that time.

Just three days later, the ACC became less North Carolina-centric when they went against the interest of the flagship school of the state, UNC, and their two most important institutions, Clemson and Florida State. By a 12-3 vote, the conference decided to add California, Stanford, and SMU. NC State was previously against the additions but flipped, allowing the passage of what can only be classified as a wildly reactionary move. Here’s what the UNC Board of Trustees said of the move prior to the vote:

“The strong majority of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees opposes the proposed expansion of the Atlantic Coast Conference to include Stanford University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Southern Methodist University. Although we respect the academic excellence and the athletic programs of those institutions, the travel distances for routine in-conference competitive play are too great for this arrangement to make sense for our student athletes, coaches, alumni and fans. Furthermore, the economics of this newly imagined transcontinental conference do not sufficiently address the income disparity ACC members face. Without ironclad assurances that the proposed expansion serves the interest of UNC-Chapel Hill, we believe it should be voted down.”

This move is not without any positives. First and foremost, it will bring more money to the 15 current members (including Notre Dame). Out of desperation, these three schools offered to take less money than what they’ll bring in additional TV revenues for nine years, with SMU taking no TV revenue for 7-9 years. That creates a pool of $50-$60 million, which will be distributed to the current members. Depending on how much of this is distributed proportionally vs. based on football success it could yield $6-8 million annually for Clemson. Not horrible.

I’ve confirmed the revenue distribution for Stanford/Cal:

30 percent the first 7 years. 70 percent in Year 8, 75 percent in Year 9, 100 percent Years 10-12.
— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) September 1, 2023

If you’re a school like Syracuse, Boston College, or Wake Forest, this move has another purpose entirely. It prevents the ACC from dissolving and the more desirable schools from building a more lucrative future without you. Instead of the best eight to ten schools all leaving together – dissolving the ACC and Grant of Rights theoretically – and joining or forming another conference, they’re stuck with you.

The downsides to this move are obvious. None of the new schools have particularly big or passionate fanbases or brands that draw interest from the casual fan. Per Medium.com, Clemson was 10th nationally and first in the ACC in average TV ratings last season. FSU was 15th nationally. There’s a huge drop off to the next ACC school after that, with NC State at 43rd and UNC at 46th. Cal and Stanford slot in right there at 45th and 47th, respectively. That’s not bad relative to the rest of the ACC. Unfortunately, those decent ratings may be largely because they faced opponents who draw well. Combined, Cal and Stanford played Notre Dame twice, Oregon twice, USC twice, UCLA twice, Utah once, Washington twice, BYU once, and Washington State twice. That means 14 of their 24 games were against schools that draw better ratings than all ACC schools except Clemson and Florida State.

SMU ranked 72nd in average TV rating, ahead of the two Virginia schools and Duke. Of course, playing Power 5 opponents would likely give them a big boost, so you could see their ratings surpass Cal and Stanford once they’re in the ACC. SMU is in a great football state that isn’t too far from the ACC footprint, and if they’re willing to forego TV revenue for nearly a decade, I don’t have major complaints about adding them.

I have a personal anecdote about SMU that gives me pause, though. Prior to the 2018 Clemson game at Texas A&M, I attended the TCU at SMU game on Friday. Despite being only the size of Wake Forest’s small stadium, SMU’s Gerald J. Ford Stadium was at best, half full. It was a drizzly Friday, but I was expecting a raucous crowd, given the game was against local rival TCU. It was quiet from start to finish as SMU lost 42-12. It left a bad taste in my mouth regarding how small or passionless the fan base there may be.

On the football quality side, the three schools combined to go 14-23 last season. In the last three seasons, Cal and Stanford are a combined 20-38. Since 1989, SMU has just nine seasons above .500. The bottom tier of the ACC, which was Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech, now adds three more schools. It will be by far the biggest and weakest bottom tier of the four major conferences in 2024. The move immediately makes the ACC much weaker.

Then, of course, is the biggest and most obvious issue: geography. Clemson will literally be flying their volleyball, women’s basketball, soccer, and teams from other non-revenue sports cross-country. These are sports that already lose money! The travel costs will be bad, but so will the impact on the student-athlete experience. Perhaps that’s a burden they must carry in exchange for being funded by football, but it seems like the most shameless money grab of all the realignment moves.

It’s also completely reactionary. When the SEC added Oklahoma and Texas, the ACC did nothing. They did not make a play for West Virginia or any Group of Five schools. Instead, they sat back and watched as BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, and Houston joined the Big 12. When the Big Ten took the top four schools in the Pac-12, the ACC did nothing. They did not make a play for Utah. Instead, they watched as the next best crop of Pac-12 went to the Big 12. Then, after all that, in reaction to Florida State saber-rattling about leaving the ACC, they went out and took three schools who in desperation are willing to come at a discount.

New scheduling models will come soon and will likely mean fewer games for Clemson against regional rivals like NC State and even a nine-game conference slate which would result in fewer games against non-conference opponents like Georgia and LSU (both upcoming).

Before, I would have described the sentiment from many Clemson fans as “we need to close the financial gap, but I’d love to make it work in the ACC.” Now, the only good feelings about the conference are nostalgia. If Clemson needed to escape for the money before, now they need to escape for the money and quality of opponents.