Will Duke get left behind by conference realignment? Blue Devils mailbag

July 27, 2024

What a time to be a Duke fan.

New basketball coach. New football coach. Relatively new athletic director. And as if all that internal change isn’t enough, there’s also the elephant in the room: conference realignment, which will upend modern college athletics as early as 2024.

So, where does Duke fit in that larger landscape of realignment? And how much weight can its torch-bearing brand, men’s basketball, actually carry? That’s where we’ll start in this week’s mailbag — thanks for the submissions, as always — and we can tighten the focus from there:

How nervous should we Duke fans be re: re-alignment? There is very little to do, but reading the tea leaves it seems that Duke is more likely to be on the outside looking in (of the two mega conferences) once it all shakes out. Besides the financial hit that would imply, I would hate to lose out on so many rivalry games. What’s your read/feeling regarding Duke’s standing? — Jose C.

You said it, Jose, not me. But you’re right. Conference realignment, at present, isn’t tracking in a way that favors the Blue Devils.

Without rehashing too many details, this latest round of realignment — spurred by Texas and Oklahoma’s move to the SEC, and further amplified by USC and UCLA joining the Big Ten — is all about television revenue. Currently, the SEC and Big Ten outpace every other major conference in that regard … and it’s not super close. Through its contract with ESPN, each SEC member school received an average distribution of $54.6 million for the 2020-21 fiscal year, according to financial disclosure forms. During the same time frame, FOX paid Big Ten members an average distribution of $46.1 million. Then there’s the ACC, whose member schools received a comparatively-low $36.1 million average distribution, despite record revenue as a result of Notre Dame’s temporary, COVID-19-induced conference membership.

I’m no math whiz, but even I know that lagging $10-18 million per year behind your conference counterparts probably isn’t best for business.

And that’s just the deficit before the SEC and Big Ten get their megabucks media contracts in 2024, too. It’s not inconceivable, based on estimates provided to The Athletic, that in the next decade, those two superconferences will be paying their member schools annual distributions double (or even triple) what the ACC is.

The reason for the gap is obvious: each league’s football prowess (or lack thereof). Football is king in the modern media landscape; NFL games top the totem pole of live TV events that command major viewership, but college football isn’t far behind. No surprise, then, that networks pay by the boatload for that inventory. But what about men’s basketball, Duke fans will ask. The sad truth is, even a men’s basketball brand as valuable as Duke’s doesn’t stack up in the broader college sports universe. Duke basketball generated about $22.5 million dollars during the 2020-21 fiscal year, per tax documents — more than half of which (roughly $12.5 million) Mike Krzyzewski earned in salary and deferred payments — but that’s pennies compared to even middling college football programs. For reference: Duke’s rival, North Carolina, saw its football program generate roughly $44.4 million in revenue over that same 2020-21 fiscal year. Obviously, Duke men’s basketball is, and historically has been, a more successful and notable program than UNC football … and yet, it almost got doubled up revenue-wise all the same. That is why football is king, and why Duke finds itself in such a perilous position.

Television revenue is tied to success, obviously, but it’s also tied to viewership. They’re not mutually exclusive, either; you can have success without crazy viewership (hello, Wake Forest), same as you can have bad teams with rabid fan bases (looking at you, Washington State). The most valuable programs have both. Duke, unfortunately, has neither. Per my colleague Andy Staples, no ACC school participated in fewer games from 2015-19 and 2021 with over one million viewers than Duke did. (For reference, Clemson topped that list with 34 such games, to give you a quantitative idea of how far apart the two programs are.) It’s not a stretch to say that Duke, which has gone 10-25 the last three seasons, is arguably the ACC’s least-valuable football program. Athletic director Nina King is doing the right things and committing resources to improve that, but it’s not an overnight fix. That’s bad news during conference realignment, where only schools who provide more value than their expected annual media rights distribution will be sought-after by the SEC or Big Ten. Ideally, Duke’s men’s basketball team is the sort of cherry on top that entices a conference to add a member … but not if that potential member is a net-negative in football. Unfortunately, any way you shake the basketball side of things, it’s a nonstarter as long as football lags so far behind.

With all that in mind, what happens with Duke? For the time being, probably nothing. The ACC’s grant of rights runs through 2036, meaning every member school’s media rights are basically locked until then. Without exaggeration, it’s the only thing keeping the conference together. But it’s also in Duke’s best interest that things stay that way, because the alternative isn’t ideal. Just look to the Pac-12 for proof; USC and UCLA were deemed valuable enough to be poached, which, great for them. But look at the Pac-12 schools left behind, from Oregon and Washington down on to Oregon State and Cal. They’re left scrambling, suddenly down their two most lucrative league partners and without clear direction of what’s next. Do they try adding teams, none of whom carry UCLA or USC’s cachet, to rebuild their conference? Or read the writing on the walls and bail for greener pastures, if that’s even feasible? Now re-think that situation, except sub “Clemson and UNC” for “USC and UCLA” — and then sub the leftovers for the ACC’s. It’s not a place Duke wants to be, that’s for sure.

If there’s any silver lining here, it’s that time seems to be on Duke’s side. The ACC grant of rights might eventually be challenged in courts, but that’s months or even years away; there’s a reason Oklahoma, Texas, USC, and UCLA all decided to wait theirs out until 2024, rather than leave early and risk a costly, uncertain litigation. But with each passing year, the cost of leaving early drops, and the incentive to join the SEC or Big Ten grows — and eventually, someone will be tempted enough by the money to take that gamble in court. Duke has that much time, however long it ends up being, to get its football program back on an upward trajectory. That (and continued men’s basketball excellence) is the best hope for the Blue Devils landing on their feet when the conference realignment dust settles.

Do we have a read on Duke’s NIL approach relative to other top programs, or how that may evolve under Jon Scheyer? Is NIL actually less relevant to Duke given the one-and-done strategy? Curious if top players have said much publicly. — Joe F.

Because some folks still have confusion about name, image, and likeness (NIL), I feel like it’s important I clarify. Are we talking here about true NIL as it was envisioned, where athletes are compensated for deliverables like autographs, appearances, and commercials? Or are we talking about pay-for-play, which quickly mutated from a lawless NIL landscape and has been hiding under that guise ever since?

It’s a critical distinction, and one that’s all-too-often ignored — not just by fans, but reporters, too. As far as Duke is concerned, true NIL is absolutely something the program pushes. For example, during the recruiting process, Duke makes an NIL pitch to players (including the current freshman class) and their families, discussing everything from university compliance to earning potential. Paolo Banchero was the NIL frontrunner on last season’s team — as if being the first college player in NBA 2K wasn’t a giveaway — but both Trevor Keels and Wendell Moore Jr. had deals of their own, too. (Side note: People always ask me how much these deals are for, and they’re not the millions and millions commonly guessed. Not even close. Think more in the four- or five-figure range; only the top 1 percent of players are getting six figures, and that’s typically with multiple deals accumulating rather than any single agreement.) The larger point is, Duke is definitely proactive here, to the point that it created a general manager position this summer to spearhead NIL conversations and form the program’s overall policy. You’ll see other schools follow in short order.

I’m not sure what you mean, though, about why Duke’s one-and-done strategy would mean NIL matters less. Like I mentioned, Banchero was by far the biggest NIL earner last season, and he did that all in the span of nine months. Players coming to Duke are the best of the best; they expect to be recognizable enough, and subsequently play well enough, for companies to want to partner with them on marketing deals. Doesn’t matter if they’re on campus for nine months or four years — that’s part of Duke’s draw in the first place.

Now, the pay-for-play “NIL”, where boosters use collectives and various other means to basically buy player commitments, is another story altogether. It’s definitely happening across the college sports landscape — and may eventually draw NCAA ire — but Duke doesn’t need bag men to convince recruits. Certain top players will just chase the money, sure. But plenty of others just want to play at a place that produces pros, wins a ton, frequently is featured on TV, and gets them better at basketball. Those are the ones Duke goes after, and guess what? For good reason. That first NBA contract pays a hell of a lot more than any pay-for-play agreement.

What role will freshman big Dereck Lively II fill this season? (Charles Rex Arbogast / Associated Press)Do you see Dereck Lively II playing almost an identical role to Mark Williams in terms of a defensive rim protector and providing vertical spacing on offense, or do you see him playing a little more away from the basket than Mark did? — Lucas C.

Lively will definitely offer some of the rim protection and offensive verticality Williams did, but I see that as more of a starting point for what he can be. That’s because at this point in his development, Lively is just further along offensively than Williams was. He’s not some knockdown 3-point shooter or ball-handling savant, but he definitely has more range — and comfort outside the paint — than we saw with Williams the last two seasons.

The biggest thing working against Lively playing more on the perimeter is the roster around him. In Kyle Filipowski, Duke has another top frontcourt recruit in need of minutes, but one with much more offensive skill and polish than Lively. Filipowski isn’t the athlete Lively is, but in terms of having shooting range, passing vision and ability, and ball-handling, there’s no question he has a deeper bag. With Lively as a defensive anchor on the interior, for spacing purposes, that’s somewhat naturally going to pull Filipowski to the perimeter more often. Short answer, think of Williams’ role as the baseline for Lively, with anything beyond that as a bonus.

Long gone are the four-year players, but I think it will be interesting to have the older transfers on the roster. Any insight into why Scheyer added so many and the qualities he was looking for? Are they mostly roster fillers, solid contributors, or is possibly the main goal to mentor the freshman? — Richard F.

I know it wasn’t your question, Richard, but I’d push back on the idea that four-year players are a thing of the past. The MOP of this year’s Final Four was a four-year, developmental recruit who turned himself into a first-round pick. Not saying every three-star kid is going to eventually have that same trajectory, but imperfect recruits who stick around for four seasons and gradually improve aren’t just going by the wayside. One-and-dones might still be the most talented players on any given team — and I’d make that argument for Duke this year — but the sweet spot for modern roster construction requires experienced role players, too. On the current roster, think guys like Jaylen Blakes or freshman Christian Reeves.

As for the transfers, Scheyer made it clear over the last year — with both his words and actions — that high school recruiting will remain Duke’s priority. But that doesn’t mean he will ignore the portal, or not hit it when necessary. Like, say, when you lose five players to the NBA, two to graduation, two to the transfer portal, and need some new bodies. I went in-depth on the transfers and entire roster here, but I can give you the SparkNotes, too.

Jacob Grandison is the best of the bunch, a legitimate sharpshooter with defensive switchability; I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a starter for the season-opener. Ryan Young will play, too, in the Theo John backup big role, and as a mentor for the frontcourt freshmen. Kale Catchings is an undersized forward with a streaky offensive game, but could see some spot minutes depending on how much he buys into rebounding and defense. The only transfer I don’t expect to play is Max Johns, who also didn’t see much time at Princeton and should essentially be a scout team guard.

What exactly is Mike Schrage’s role on the staff? — Ted S.

At first it was helping steer the transition ship, as someone for Scheyer to bounce ideas off and split recruiting responsibilities with. But now that Scheyer has his three assistants, Schrage is off the recruiting trail. As a former director of basketball ops, assistant coach, and most recently head coach, Schrage knows his Xs and Os; I imagine he — and Lucas, too — will provide Scheyer some good schematic diversity of thought. In fact, that’s something Carrawell has already mentioned as being valuable. For a program that historically hired exclusively former Blue Devils, it’s a good change of pace to bring in a guy who’s been elsewhere. Once the games begin, he’ll also be able to offer in-game assistance, like suggestions on timeouts and managing the rotation. I’d bet come October, no two days look the same for Schrage.

(Top photo of Jon Scheyer: Rob Kinnan / USA Today)

ncG1vNJzZmismJqutbTLnquim16YvK57km1pbG1pbXxzfJFrZmlvX2aBcLDUpJxmqpWWuaqzzaacp6xdqLCpsdieqWakmauyrcWO