The true prize reportedly
might be in
North Carolina. See "might be"
Then, "However, the most important brand
is apparently in Chapel Hill." Yet, nowhere in the article do they point out why that is the brand everyone wants when we all know this is driven by football money, something that UNC does not deliver in any way.
If you dig down into the article, he cites an article I read by Ross Dellenger. Here is what he had to say:
“North Carolina,” said an industry source, “is the lynchpin.”
About 5 paragraphs later, this is all he says:
"The Tar Heels remain the lynchpin to the ACC’s future. They are a charter member of the conference, reside in its geographic center, boast an impressive academic reputation, and are arguably the conference’s most valuable brand, from both a football and basketball perspective as well as Olympic sports."
No mention of the finances that UNC doesn't bring, although he later says,
"Football-related TV distribution is the primary revenue driver for most major college athletic departments." UNC doesn't drive any revenue there.
In discussing where Clemson and FSU would land, schools that bring way more football revenue to the table, Dellenger says:
"It is unlikely that any SEC or Big Ten school will agree to accept a reduction in their TV distribution to add any school. For the SEC, that is especially so given its footprint: the league already owns a foothold in South Carolina and in Florida. Also, the SEC programs in those states would likely make a fuss, if they haven’t already, over inviting into the league their arch-rivals (See: Texas A&M’s reaction to the SEC inviting Texas).
In order for the Big Ten and SEC to expand, they’d likely need more money from their television partners — a lot more money (more than $100 million a year). That’s primarily Fox for the Big Ten and ESPN for the SEC. There is one problem with this.
“There isn’t as much money in the market as there once was,” said a conference official with knowledge of the networks’ dealings."
Basically, he is acknowledging that football revenue drives the decisions. No SEC or B1G team is going to take a cut. The team coming in has to bring in $100 million in actual value, and the TV partners aren't going to just pony that up as there isn't as much in the market as there used to be. None of that bodes well for UNC to be the "lynchpin" of anything. The only thing UNC has going for it is (1) academic prestige (the SEC doesn't care), (2) Olympic sports (the SEC doesn't care), and (3) a new market that is not important now and less so in the future.
Now throw in that the NC legislature has taken the decision to move conferences out of the schools' hands and put them into the UNC System Board of Governors' hands, which means UNC is going anywhere without NC State. The SEC and the B1G don't want NCState, and there is no reason to be optimistic that UNC has a place to land.
However, in January, a new policy change in the state of North Carolina adds a wrinkle to any realignment. The UNC System Board of Governors voted to give the system president and itself final authority over a school changing conferences. The policy now requires the school chancellor to provide notice and a financial plan for a school’s potential conference exit.
The Board of Governors has authority over both North Carolina and NC State. Does this mean NC State and UNC are a package deal if they are to leave the ACC? Perhaps.
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper believes the two should not compete in separate conferences.
“I would hope that would not happen and that would not be good for our state,” he said earlier this year.
I have a son who graduated from UNC and one who is in medical school at UNC, and I would love to have SEC football 20 minutes from my house. But there is nothing to support the idea that UNC is the "lynchpin"—whatever that means in this context—for ACC schools going to the SEC.
