More Realignment News
- Thread starter tarheel0910
- Start date
Of schools that are located in the DFW TV market, SMU will be a definite #2 TV draw behind TCU, and TCU is well behind Texas, A&M, and OU. In fact, TTU often outdraws TCU.
And yet the dammed fools running the ACC think adding SMU would be anything but a sign of impending doom for the ACC?
And yet the dammed fools running the ACC think adding SMU would be anything but a sign of impending doom for the ACC?
Do we have any Mods on this board? How can anyone be allowed to post something so disgusting on a sports board?! Like BillyL on the OTB politics thread, Woad has lost his mind.
Cincinnati is not getting a full share on Big 12 money, but new additions from Pac are.
I have been in favor of the ACC adding Cinc, to replace either Wee or BC, since the ACC added Louisville,. Louisville's most played rival in both revenue sports in Cincy, and OH borders both KY and PA. More important, OH is a large and wealthy state, historically the most powerful state in every sense in the midwest. best yet, OH is a football-crazed state that produces a lot of football talent. Cincy has never played football in what is truly a Major conference. When it was added to the BE, BE football was depleted. So we have no idea what kind of football power Cincy, the second largest university in OH and the second most important college sports school as well, could become if it were part of a full strength ACC. My guess is that because OH is a deep and wide 'football state' that Conch could become a consistent winner with a growing TV fan base that would dwarf anything Wake or BC could ever dream to produce.
This 'not full share' issue is an opening to lure Cincy. Of course, the basketball minded ASCC people are still certain their faith in the ACC Tournament will save the entire league, but if not, why bring in OH rednecks when you could land UConn and improve hoops even more?
I have been in favor of the ACC adding Cinc, to replace either Wee or BC, since the ACC added Louisville,. Louisville's most played rival in both revenue sports in Cincy, and OH borders both KY and PA. More important, OH is a large and wealthy state, historically the most powerful state in every sense in the midwest. best yet, OH is a football-crazed state that produces a lot of football talent. Cincy has never played football in what is truly a Major conference. When it was added to the BE, BE football was depleted. So we have no idea what kind of football power Cincy, the second largest university in OH and the second most important college sports school as well, could become if it were part of a full strength ACC. My guess is that because OH is a deep and wide 'football state' that Conch could become a consistent winner with a growing TV fan base that would dwarf anything Wake or BC could ever dream to produce.
This 'not full share' issue is an opening to lure Cincy. Of course, the basketball minded ASCC people are still certain their faith in the ACC Tournament will save the entire league, but if not, why bring in OH rednecks when you could land UConn and improve hoops even more?
If that's true and Phillips adds them without ND joining, then he should be fired.
Looks like there are at least a few schools that haven't lost their mind.
Finally some good news. Makes no sense to add them now that Oregon and Washington are off the table. I also like that we put ND in their place. You want them to come, you come with them. Otherwise STFU.
ETA: Per ESPN we are one of the four that said no, so Bubba made a good move on this.
Last edited:
I believe they voted no because there's no financial reason to add them. Giving ND the middle finger and showing them they can't do what they want is a bonus.
Who are you? You have a total of two posts, and the second is just some girly smarty pants crap.
It is not about 'showing them.' It is about UNC stepping up to lead with force. If ND would like to do that, ND must first commit to ACC football. And as you should be aware, at this point, there are very, very few ACC people who are about football and the survival of the ACC long term who are not ready, even itching, to see ND leave.
Trev Alberts thinks much bigger stuff is coming.
Football totally separate from everything else. Football is that much bigger, but, the simple fact is that if you take top tier basketball away from the NCAA and place it with this football category, then basketball value also will rise. right now, the fact that at least a dozen and a half leagues in NCAA D1 basketball belong in D2 drains away some basketball value.
If you factor in that per capita much wealthier basketball, the. the 35-40 total would be more likely to become 60 or so for football with perhaps a few extras that do not play top tier football (say, Nova, Georgetown, St Johns, Gonzaga, St Marys, Wichita St).
It also should mean that at least a handful of BT and SEC schools (Northwestern, Rutgers, Vandy) get dropped.
Football totally separate from everything else. Football is that much bigger, but, the simple fact is that if you take top tier basketball away from the NCAA and place it with this football category, then basketball value also will rise. right now, the fact that at least a dozen and a half leagues in NCAA D1 basketball belong in D2 drains away some basketball value.
If you factor in that per capita much wealthier basketball, the. the 35-40 total would be more likely to become 60 or so for football with perhaps a few extras that do not play top tier football (say, Nova, Georgetown, St Johns, Gonzaga, St Marys, Wichita St).
It also should mean that at least a handful of BT and SEC schools (Northwestern, Rutgers, Vandy) get dropped.
He's not the first to say it. There's been other coaches/administrators/reporters that have said it. Giving the P4 complete autonomy and allow them to be run like NFL is the best possible move now. You split the regular season revenue and give playoff money to participants and winners. It's a little too late to fix the conferences for Olympic sports, but at least it won't get any worse.
But is he the first sitting AD to say it? Boosters are insiders, as are many journalists who cover CFB as their main gig. But an AD is a different kind of cat.
Andrea Adelson on current realignment issues for the ACC.
Here is another quote that proves that those who lead the ACC schools remain total idiots about what makes and breaks conferences. Adelson notes that the ACC did make overtures to Washington and Oregon more than year ago, and says that a 'source' informed her that the UDub President declined the offer for some kind of 'partnership.'
So the ACC tried, but tried what is the first issue. My guess is that unless the ACC were offering at least 6 Pac schools, the odds of an offer for just the northernmost 4 would not have pulled Oregon and Washington. Did ESPN hamstring the ACC to just 4? Or did the ACC just not want more than 4?
If the ACC had smart leadership tenant has learned rightly from its previous expansion weaknesses, that would have ended any though of even talking to any other schools in the Pac. Without the major football value of Oregon and Washington, other Pac schools would just be liabilities that the ACC simply cannot afford. But Adelson writes:
With Oregon and Washington headed to the Big Ten, and Arizona, Arizona State and Utah officially joining the Big 12, the Pac-12 had only four schools remaining. The ACC conversations about Cal and Stanford grew more serious. From an outside perspective, there seemed to be few benefits, especially for a league that needed two things desperately: more revenue and a boost to its football reputation. Neither school provided that. Add in travel to the West Coast for only two teams, and it made little sense.
Except to the presidents.
"Cal and Stanford were probably from the presidents' perspective a better target than anybody else in the Pac-12 just because of the academic reputation," one administrator said. "The fact that Oregon and Washington left, OK that's fine, but these are two pretty good brands, so how do we integrate them into the league?"
They same damn problems that meant the ACC leaders chose Wake in 1953 over VPI (meaning, they chose a teeny tiny private school with no fans over a a rising Land Grant filled with sports fanatic undergrads) and always have worse than ignored WVU while loving the BCs of the world now, with Death knocking on their front door, really don't care what the real world problems are in adding Cal and Stanford alone to the ACC; they just love the academic snob value.
Is it any wonder that most SEC fans, and almost as many BT fans, assume that the ACC is just far too stupid to survive?
Here is another quote that proves that those who lead the ACC schools remain total idiots about what makes and breaks conferences. Adelson notes that the ACC did make overtures to Washington and Oregon more than year ago, and says that a 'source' informed her that the UDub President declined the offer for some kind of 'partnership.'
So the ACC tried, but tried what is the first issue. My guess is that unless the ACC were offering at least 6 Pac schools, the odds of an offer for just the northernmost 4 would not have pulled Oregon and Washington. Did ESPN hamstring the ACC to just 4? Or did the ACC just not want more than 4?
If the ACC had smart leadership tenant has learned rightly from its previous expansion weaknesses, that would have ended any though of even talking to any other schools in the Pac. Without the major football value of Oregon and Washington, other Pac schools would just be liabilities that the ACC simply cannot afford. But Adelson writes:
With Oregon and Washington headed to the Big Ten, and Arizona, Arizona State and Utah officially joining the Big 12, the Pac-12 had only four schools remaining. The ACC conversations about Cal and Stanford grew more serious. From an outside perspective, there seemed to be few benefits, especially for a league that needed two things desperately: more revenue and a boost to its football reputation. Neither school provided that. Add in travel to the West Coast for only two teams, and it made little sense.
Except to the presidents.
"Cal and Stanford were probably from the presidents' perspective a better target than anybody else in the Pac-12 just because of the academic reputation," one administrator said. "The fact that Oregon and Washington left, OK that's fine, but these are two pretty good brands, so how do we integrate them into the league?"
They same damn problems that meant the ACC leaders chose Wake in 1953 over VPI (meaning, they chose a teeny tiny private school with no fans over a a rising Land Grant filled with sports fanatic undergrads) and always have worse than ignored WVU while loving the BCs of the world now, with Death knocking on their front door, really don't care what the real world problems are in adding Cal and Stanford alone to the ACC; they just love the academic snob value.
Is it any wonder that most SEC fans, and almost as many BT fans, assume that the ACC is just far too stupid to survive?
Well, here's a realignment headline: Stanford Informs Remaining Pac-4 Teams It will Join the ACC For Free.
If Stanford would do that, it might actually help the ACC get through enough trouble for a few years to perhaps be able to navigate How? If a large part of the Stanford TV deal mkoneyb were to be used to set up a fund to redristirubute across the league based on TV numbers per football,game, then that mjuust might be enough to pacify FSU.
Ok, that sounds good in theory, but why would Standford do that? And could it manage fiscally by doing that?
Stanford has far and away the biggest and best all sports athletics department in the country. And almost all of it is run on donations from a a very large number of alumni donations. . Most of Stanford's non-revenue sports have their own endowments which fund coach salaries and even scholarships. I mean almost enough to pay for all aspects of the team. So Stanford actually can keep up is existing sports programs just by remaining in any Major conference for football and basketball, even if that means less pay from those TV deals than the Pac was being offered by Apple. And Stanford alums being what they are, you can bet that if Stanford were to enter the ACC this way, the school's athletics department would start receiving even more donations.
With Stanford, what would the SCC get beside that small amount of Stanford money that can be distributed across the league? Well, you can bet the ACCN expands, especially across northeran CA, but Stanford alums also are well positioned in both LA and SD. Stanford alums can help secure more money for the ACC by using their clout to help spread the ACCN.
And nobody should complain about games payed in Palo Alto. Just look at it as like an Away game to the Pac. It is Stanford that would have to do all the traveling.
Cal is another story. Cal does not have such endowed sports. And Cal is already deeply in debt in its sports - like 300 million debt. So Cal must remain a NO in thunder. Cal would be like adding a BC that has much less money for its sports.
If Stanford would do that, it might actually help the ACC get through enough trouble for a few years to perhaps be able to navigate How? If a large part of the Stanford TV deal mkoneyb were to be used to set up a fund to redristirubute across the league based on TV numbers per football,game, then that mjuust might be enough to pacify FSU.
Ok, that sounds good in theory, but why would Standford do that? And could it manage fiscally by doing that?
Stanford has far and away the biggest and best all sports athletics department in the country. And almost all of it is run on donations from a a very large number of alumni donations. . Most of Stanford's non-revenue sports have their own endowments which fund coach salaries and even scholarships. I mean almost enough to pay for all aspects of the team. So Stanford actually can keep up is existing sports programs just by remaining in any Major conference for football and basketball, even if that means less pay from those TV deals than the Pac was being offered by Apple. And Stanford alums being what they are, you can bet that if Stanford were to enter the ACC this way, the school's athletics department would start receiving even more donations.
With Stanford, what would the SCC get beside that small amount of Stanford money that can be distributed across the league? Well, you can bet the ACCN expands, especially across northeran CA, but Stanford alums also are well positioned in both LA and SD. Stanford alums can help secure more money for the ACC by using their clout to help spread the ACCN.
And nobody should complain about games payed in Palo Alto. Just look at it as like an Away game to the Pac. It is Stanford that would have to do all the traveling.
Cal is another story. Cal does not have such endowed sports. And Cal is already deeply in debt in its sports - like 300 million debt. So Cal must remain a NO in thunder. Cal would be like adding a BC that has much less money for its sports.
Zero chance Stanford would join for free. If that was true, it would make far more sense for them to join the Big for free and there would be no reason for the Big to turn that down.
I'm game. Phillips seems like a nice guy but at this time, CFB is all about the most cutthroat people. WE need one to protect the ACC.
If Stanford wanted to be in the BT, yes. But Stanford is so rich it makes Dook look poor. And my guess is that right now Stanford hates the BT for ruining the Pac and knows it has the money ton avoid the BT. So if Stanford wants to avoid the BT and not be stuck in a league as sparse in Elite universities as the Big XII or MWC, then its only option is to try to get into the ACC.
But my guess is that Stanford wants Cal to come along, and that should be a total deal breaker unless ND also becomes full football member.
There were already reports that Stanford had talked to the Big about joining. I would think that would indicate they aren't mad enough to not join. And there is a big difference between funding the lacrosse team and funding the football team. They would go independent before playing for free.
This would be a great yr to finally be a great team.
apnews.com
With super conferences and CFP expansion on horizon, 2023 is the end of an era in college football
Welcome to the final season of college football as we know it. That might sound extreme, but 2023 has an end-of-an-era feel.
apnews.com
Cal is a hot mess as an entire athletics program and has been for some time. If you had to take Cal to get Oregon and Washington, then that would be OK. But Cal with just Stanford? That's a move more stupid than adding BC was.
Perhaps they would, but Stanford has been a mimer of a Major conference for 108 years. That is not something easy to just give up. And I have no doubt that satbford would dearly love to be in a conference with especially ND, Dook, Wake, and UVA, but also UNC, Pitt, GT, BC, even new AAU member Miami. In short, the things that most draw Stanford to the ACC are things that make ACC football have many fewer TV viewers than the SEC and BT.
Love the honesty.
www.wralsportsfan.com
'Die on the vine': UNC's Dorrance not interested in adding Stanford, Cal to the ACC :: WRALSportsFan.com
UNC women's soccer coach Anson Dorrance, who has won 21 national titles with the Tar Heels, said he does not favor adding West Coast programs Stanford and Cal to the ACC, citing competitive reasons.
www.wralsportsfan.com
Yeah, but he is talking about chic soccer. Leave to UNC to have such harsh words talking about how big, bad Stanford might just hurt chick soccer for the long time ACC members.Love the honesty.
'Die on the vine': UNC's Dorrance not interested in adding Stanford, Cal to the ACC :: WRALSportsFan.com
UNC women's soccer coach Anson Dorrance, who has won 21 national titles with the Tar Heels, said he does not favor adding West Coast programs Stanford and Cal to the ACC, citing competitive reasons.
Who thinks that chick soccer matters in this regard even as much as mens soccer, which matters nothing whatsoever?
My response to Anson: Coach, does your program pay for itself? Does any women's sport in the ACC pay for itself? If Stanford football could add to the ACC TV revenue, would you change your mind? If not, you are worse than a damned fool. You are a childishly selfish damned fool.
Well, ESPN now says this all has heated back up.
Stanford, Cal, and SMU all allegedly being seriously considered. It does not seem to make munch sense fiscally. Is it just a wild gamble because they now have no other idea? This is what comes of not acting quickly. If we'd acted while the Big 12 was still reeling, we could have had decent options ton get planted well in a state that LOVES football.
SMU could use NIL and a bunch of high rolling boosters to buy a team loaded with TX talent, but how many TV viewers will watch those Ponies play UNC and UVA and BC and GT? I do know that a talent loaded SMU team hosting good FSU or Clemson teams will be able to use the Cotton Bowl or the Jerry Dome.
Can Cal, and the very powerful Stanford alums, use CA state government to get the AXCCN all over CA at top rates? If so, that is a nice chunk of new change.
But I do not see FSU pacified at all by this kind of move
Stanford, Cal, and SMU all allegedly being seriously considered. It does not seem to make munch sense fiscally. Is it just a wild gamble because they now have no other idea? This is what comes of not acting quickly. If we'd acted while the Big 12 was still reeling, we could have had decent options ton get planted well in a state that LOVES football.
SMU could use NIL and a bunch of high rolling boosters to buy a team loaded with TX talent, but how many TV viewers will watch those Ponies play UNC and UVA and BC and GT? I do know that a talent loaded SMU team hosting good FSU or Clemson teams will be able to use the Cotton Bowl or the Jerry Dome.
Can Cal, and the very powerful Stanford alums, use CA state government to get the AXCCN all over CA at top rates? If so, that is a nice chunk of new change.
But I do not see FSU pacified at all by this kind of move
Hopefully those four don't change their minds. The only way it would even somewhat makes sense is if it results in a long term increase in revenue. Not some accounting trick that will only help for a few years. Maybe that's the real plan though. Get some increased money to keep teams from leaving and hope ESPN will be willing to renegotiate the contract a few years early.
If we can stabilize everyone for a few years, we have two factors come to the fore. 1 is that the GOR total will be down because we would be closer to its end date. That means it would cost less to buy out. 2 is that by then we would know the landscape of the future much better, in terms of how well the new playoffs work and how well the extra large leagues work. And how much backlash there is against the BT and SEC, and the networks, for all this mess. Having that knowledge will make it easier to grasp the big and most important pictures. And then maybe we can dissolve the ACC and walk away and reform with a new name and give ESPN the middle fingers and sign elsewhere.
That's the only reason I could see this making sense. But for the amount to make a big difference after splitting it 14.5 ways, Stanford and Cal would have to take a significant cut and SMU would have to come for free like people are reporting.
Reports are saying that it's starting to look more likely that the three schools will be added for football and basketball with some "financial concessions." So basically the ACC is adding three schools with little value and make no sense geographically so each of the current members can get a few million more for around five years. It amazes me that the ACC constantly finds a way to make the wrong decision.
Hope this means they think talks aren't going in their favor to join the ACC.
