As of July 1, the ACC is officially a coast-to-coast league.
Cal joined the conference on July 1, while SMU and Stanford will be added on Aug. 2.
All three schools begin conference competition this fall.
“This summer marks a momentous occasion for the ACC with the addition of three prestigious institutions – Cal, SMU, and Stanford,” ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips said in a league-issued statement Monday.
“Since our announcement last September, the conference has been diligently preparing to become an 18-memeber league that spans from coast to coast. We look forward to the future of this incredible league,” added Phillips.
But does this addition of the three schools make sense for the ACC?
My thinking is that by adding Cal, SMU and Stanford, the conference is hoping it will remain relevant nationally.
But what level of relevance is the main concern moving forward.
Were the three schools added to simply match the recent expansion by both the SEC and Big 10 conferences?
If so, then, bigger may not mean better.
The SEC added Texas and Oklahoma, while the Big 10 killed the Pac-12 by luring UCLA, Southern Cal, Washington and Oregon into the fold.
If the ACC believes that simply adding Cal, Stanford and SMU keeps the conference relevant, then holy cow, the conference should be imploded.
I’m sure there is some fiscal impact to the conference, and that’s a good thing. But to what degree will those three schools impact the conference on the football field to boost the conference’s national appeal, I’m not sure.
It’s not like the ACC added a couple of perennial national title contenders on the gridiron.
Cal and Stanford, in the Northern California market, have the same impact as Boston College in the northeast market – none.
Likewise for SMU in the Dallas area, where the Dallas Cowboys reign superior over everything.
The ACC is hoping they added enough to remain relevant in the Power 4 conversation or whatever the college landscape is reduced to soon.
The Big 10 now has a coast-to-coast footprint with the addition of the four-West Coast schools and Maryland and Rutgers on the East Coast.
The reach of your conference previously was an extra benefit to have; now it appears it’s a necessity, as the plates of college athletics keep shifting.
So, good for the ACC for realizing the current shift, and at least trying to keep current with what is required in college football to remain competitive.
But a deeper dive into this expansion might lead to this thought.
Was this expansion just an insurance plan on part of the ACC?
Florida State and Clemson are both doing their best to jump ship, with other schools paying close attention to what plays out in the courts soon.
What seems like an iron-clad Grants of Rights agreement could prevent them from exiting, but I still believe in that, where there is a will, there is a way.
If they are forced to stay, then the ACC has two legitimate contenders annually to make the 12-team College Football Playoff.
But if they do find a loophole and leave, half the conference will use the same loophole and follow.
That’s where the expansion becomes the insurance clause.
If ACC does experience the same fate as the Pac-12, then the cupboard won’t be entirely empty.
But how will the ACC be viewed if Clemson, FSU and others depart?
Does the addition of Cal, Stanford, and SMU offset defections, or does the ACC become more like the Mountain West or Sun Belt conferences?
For now, at least, that’s not the situation the ACC is in.
The ACC expansion simply allows the conference to be better prepared if future conference realignment occurs.
If it does, it’s always good to have an insurance policy.
Share
