ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[WoadBlue]

I do think there is a correlation between home attendance and football value. I think that conferences can look at that and determine how big and how passionate your following is.

I took everyone's avg over the last 4 real years, meaning 2018-2022 and not including 2020.

>100k per game
3 B16
1 SEC
The B16 has the top 3 schools but the SEC has NINE of the next 10.

>90k
5 SEC

>80k
3 SEC
1 ACC
1 B16
The B16 had only one of the last 12 (#4 through #15).

>70k
1 B16
1 Indy
1 SEC

>60k
2 ACC
2 B16
1 P10
1 SEC
The P10 finally shows up, but the B12 is still absent. Every B12 school was under 59k. Surprised that VA Tech was this high.

>50k
5 B12
4 SEC
2 ACC
2 B16
1 P10
The P10 only has 2 above 50k. The B16 surprisingly has only 9 of 16 above 50k. So nearly half the conference is under. The SEC has 15 of 16 above 51,500.

>40k
5 ACC
5 P10
4 B12
4 B16
UCLA was surprisingly in this bracket. They are lucky USC allowed them to tag along. The B16 still has 3 teams under 40k, although every school is above 35k.

>30k
4 AAC
3 B16
3 MWC
2 ACC
2 P10
1 B12
No G5 school is above 36k and ECU is the only G5 school above 34k. There is no one really worth adding. People mention San Diego State to the P10, but they would be next to last in the P10. Is that worth adding? We joke about Rutgers but Maryland is really the worse add. They averaged just under 100 more people than little old Northwestern, just barely escaping last place.

<30k
1 P10
1 SEC
2 ACC
2 B12
+ rest of the G5s
The only P5 under 25k was Duke. There 2021 was a huge outlier though, not sure why. Even dropping that season they are still dead last. We joke about Wake but Duke is even worse. Houston is last in the B12, even behind Kansas. I am sure they will get a big bump, but they will still be small. I am sure that MACtion hurts attendance but even so the highest MAC team is under 20k. UMass and Northern Illinois (surprisingly since decent program) are the only under 10k teams.


AVG by conference
SEC 75,932
B16 63,431 (a 12,501 difference)
ACC 47,004
B12 45,756
P10 43,579

Compared to the B12 and P10, the ACC has more fans, better brands, better markets, and the advantage of being in the East.


For the SEC...
P3 schools above their average: Clemson
Everyone else, including Notre Dame, would lower the SEC avg.

P3 schools in top 75% of the SEC...
ACC: Clemson, FSU, VA Tech, NC State
B12: Iowa State, BYU
P12: Washington
Outside of those ACC schools I have a hard time seeing SEC interest. Maybe BYU. The SEC might just stay at 16 or at best add 2-4 of those ACC schools to get to 18 or 20.

Based on the above I think the SEC will be:
Oklahoma, Texas, A&M, Mizzou, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Bama, Auburn
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, UGA, Florida
FSU, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, VA Tech


For the B16...
P3 schools above their average: Clemson, Notre Dame, Washington
Everyone else would lower the avg.


P3 schools in top 75% of the B16...

ACC: Clemson, FSU, VA Tech, NC State, Miami, UNC, Louisville, Pitt
I think Miami and UNC eventually end up in the B16. Outside shot for FSU or Clemson. Not on this list, I think GA Tech (for recruiting), and UVA (to entice UNC) will go as well.

B12: Iowa State, BYU, Texas Tech, Okie State, West Virginia, Kansas State, Baylor
I can't see any of these schools being on the B16's radar. The B16 has looked into Kansas before. Given their BBall and the KC market they seem worthy of a look, but how do you ignore the fact that they avg over 5500 less than the #16 team in the B16?

P12: Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, Colorado
I think Washington gets a B16 invite. I think Utah and Colorado are long shots at best. Arizona State would be interesting. I think Oregon only gets in as a +1. Not on this list is Stanford and Cal. I do think one of them will get into the B16. Stanford has a great athletics department but it is a smaller school and averages 5k less than Cal. the again they could help entice ND. I would chose Stanford, but Cal > Stanford is possible. Can't see both going.

Based on the above i think the B16 goes to 24 by adding teams in the West and Southeast.
Washington, Stanford, USC, UCLA
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois
Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana
Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, and one of Pitt/SU/BC
UVA, UNC, GA Tech, Miami


For the ACC...

G5s for interest:
Temple is under 25k but would get a bump in the ACC. So they wouldn't be last. But still how can you justify adding an under 30k avg school?

Army and Navy are small but they do have national appeal, and both would be ahead of Wake and Duke.

Memphis is under 32k, and are a bit too West.

USF is the 3rd best G5 in attendance. But I only see them being added to replace FSU or Miami.

UConn is under 19k. How can you justify adding them? Even if they doubled their attendance they would still be 14th in the ACC.

B12s of interest:
WV is above the ACC's avg. But how do you entice them to leave the B12? And will the ACC snob schools allow them?

UCF would lower the ACC avg, but IMO they are worth adding. But again how do you get them to leave?

Cincy would be well below the ACC avg. It would be hard to justify.

P10 for the ACC:
I think Washington State, Oregon State, Cal, and Arizona would only hurt the ACC. Stanford is the only poor attendance school the ACC should consider. The other 5 schools are all worthy. But what makes them go the the ACC and leave the rest behind?


P10 for the B12:
Colorado and Arizona are often rumored as B12 candidates. If both went to the B12 it would actually widen the gap between the ACC avg and the B12 avg.


For the P10...
SMU was mentioned as an expansion candidate, but how can you justify adding a school that avg'd less than 23k?

re: Pac members for ACC

Of the remaining 10, the most valuable obviously are Oregon and Washington. The three with the least value are Washington St, Oregon St, and Colorado. Arizona is probably the 4th least valuable because its football does not register any more than does Washington State's or Colorado's. Both Cal and Stanford have more value than you think. New AAU Arizona St has major value, as does Utah.

So, if the ACC could get the most valuable 6 to leave the Pac and join the ACC, that should nicely increase the value of the ACC to ESPN. Not to SEC or BT levels, but reasonably close.

 

[two3zone]

I already spend way too much time on SF, can’t imagine perusing other message boards (besides my annual banning from tiger net while chitfaced).

I figured with your username that you’d be banned from chaturbait.

 

[SmilinBob]

re: Pac members for ACC

Of the remaining 10, the most valuable obviously are Oregon and Washington. The three with the least value are Washington St, Oregon St, and Colorado. Arizona is probably the 4th least valuable because its football does not register any more than does Washington State's or Colorado's. Both Cal and Stanford have more value than you think. New AAU Arizona St has major value, as does Utah.

So, if the ACC could get the most valuable 6 to leave the Pac and join the ACC, that should nicely increase the value of the ACC to ESPN. Not to SEC or BT levels, but reasonably close.

So if the PAC's joined it could be possibly a new deal correct? So the GOR would have to be agreed by all schools and does this move the needle for Clemson and FSU to stay? OU and UW want to be in the Big 10 so the deal would have to be solid.

The Ocean Coast Conference or OCC.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

re: Pac members for ACC

Of the remaining 10, the most valuable obviously are Oregon and Washington. The three with the least value are Washington St, Oregon St, and Colorado. Arizona is probably the 4th least valuable because its football does not register any more than does Washington State's or Colorado's. Both Cal and Stanford have more value than you think. New AAU Arizona St has major value, as does Utah.

So, if the ACC could get the most valuable 6 to leave the Pac and join the ACC, that should nicely increase the value of the ACC to ESPN. Not to SEC or BT levels, but reasonably close.

I would say Washington is #1. And Oregon might not even be #2. You can certainly argue that Arizona State or Stanford are worth more. How is Colorado with Denver and a decent sized fanbase 3rd worst? How does Cal have any value at all? They stink at sports and have a small following. Utah is blah. Not good, not bad.

My ranking:
Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Stanford, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State

If you take the 1st four then the last four add no value to the ACC. The middle two you can give or take. They won't hurt but they won't help. More so they are needed to ease travel. If the ACC went to 20 you can have four divisions of 5, which means Utah gets left out.

 

[WoadBlue]

I would say Washington is #1. And Oregon might not even be #2. You can certainly argue that Arizona State or Stanford are worth more. How is Colorado with Denver and a decent sized fanbase 3rd worst? How does Cal have any value at all? They stink at sports and have a small following. Utah is blah. Not good, not bad.

My ranking:
Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Stanford, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State

If you take the 1st four then the last four add no value to the ACC. The middle two you can give or take. They won't hurt but they won't help. More so they are needed to ease travel. If the ACC went to 20 you can have four divisions of 5, which means Utah gets left out.

Colorado is like a state flagship version of BC: almost nobody in that TV market cares a half a flip. In Denver, sports interests are in order: Broncos, Rockies, Avalanche, Nuggets, and then a far distant #5 comes Colorado football. Buffs basketball is so low it doesn't even register.

You need to see what Utah now does with TV viewers. They dwarf Colorado in all sports, and dwarf Arizona football. A big part of that is no NFL in Salt Lake.

You under estimate the value of Cal, which is tied to Stanford. Both Oregon and Washington would want that pair with them in any such move because they require as much CA exposure as possible.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Colorado is like a state flagship version of BC: almost nobody in that TV market cares a half a flip. In Denver, sports interests are in order: Broncos, Rockies, Avalanche, Nuggets, and then a far distant #5 comes Colorado football. Buffs basketball is so low it doesn't even register.

You need to see what Utah now does with TV viewers. They dwarf Colorado in all sports, and dwarf Arizona football. A big part of that is no NFL in Salt Lake.

You under estimate the value of Cal, which is tied to Stanford. Both Oregon and Washington would want that pair with them in any such move because they require as much CA exposure as possible.

What does Cal add? Nothing if you take Stanford.

Utah barely outdraws Colorado. Utah has been good lately. That is why they get better ratings. All things equal Colorado is better.

 

[WoadBlue]

So if the PAC's joined it could be possibly a new deal correct? So the GOR would have to be agreed by all schools and does this move the needle for Clemson and FSU to stay? OU and UW want to be in the Big 10 so the deal would have to be solid.

The Ocean Coast Conference or OCC.

Not a bad name.

Yes, if those more valuable Pac schools were prepared to join with the ACC, ESPN would certainly open negotiations. Not to do so would surely mean that ESPN would lose its remaining value across PST.

I think it a given that now that college sports audiences in PST have dropped so much, there is no way that any Pac lacking SC and UCKLA can veer be worth much by itself. But if the most valuable of the remaining Pac schools are part of a league like the ACC, then both parts can bibelot from being in a 'national' conference. And that would be of real value to ESPN.

That does not mean that the idiots running Disney can see that.

 

[WoadBlue]

What does Cal add? Nothing if you take Stanford.

Utah barely outdraws Colorado. Utah has been good lately. That is why they get better ratings. All things equal Colorado is better.

The true Flagship of CA. That may mean nothing to you, but it does to people out west.

Colorado never again will have any TV fan base, and even at its height Colorado averaged maybe 49K per game.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The true Flagship of CA. That may mean nothing to you, but it does to people out west.

Colorado never again will have any TV fan base, and even at its height Colorado averaged maybe 49K per game.

Colorado and Utah are basically the same. Tie goes to the TV market.

Cal does nothing for the ACC. Flagship status doesn’t equal dollars. Cal sports suck and have no following what so ever.

 

[BlazeOrange]

Cal has value if they need to take Stanford and Cal to get UW and Oregon to quit waiting for a B1G invite.

If the Northwest pair are in, would Stanford hold out to get Cal as a rival/travel partner? Is it worth it to take both because of that?

Or just switch to two (or all 3 and leverage Stanford as a 4th) of Utah, Colorado, or Arizona State and drop the Coastal theme?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Cal has value if they need to take Stanford and Cal to get UW and Oregon to quit waiting for a B1G invite.

If the Northwest pair are in, would Stanford hold out to get Cal as a rival/travel partner? Is it worth it to take both because of that?

Or just switch to two (or all 3 and leverage Stanford as a 4th) of Utah, Colorado, or Arizona State and drop the Coastal theme?

If Cal and Stanford were both worth it they would be in the B16 right now. For the ACC it should be one or the other. If the answer to that is no, then you do not add any P10 teams. There is no way that adding both makes the current ACC schools any richer.

If one wants Cal, then you need to drop Stanford. I can understand that angle. But both, no way.

 

[SU94]

If Cal and Stanford were both worth it they would be in the B16 right now. For the ACC it should be one or the other. If the answer to that is no, then you do not add any P10 teams. There is no way that adding both makes the current ACC schools any richer.

If one wants Cal, then you need to drop Stanford. I can understand that angle. But both, no way.

Cal and Stanford. Or neither. Would never be just one. Together, they "deliver" the Bay Area, which has LOTS of money and tech at its disposal.

Cal-Stanford is a huge inventory piece in any potential TV right deal moving forward.
And then there are academics. That counts for the conference with Duke, UVa, Georgia Tech, etc.

Utah/Colorado is close. Near equals. TV market is bigger in Denver, but for recent success and priority within their respective market, Utah has a big advantage (Utah-BYU is a big inventory piece, even if it only once every other year). Deion is big right now, but I also don't anticipate he will be the HC there in 4-5 years either (time will tell).

I'd choose neither TBH: Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Wash.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Cal and Stanford. Or neither. Would never be just one. Together, they "deliver" the Bay Area, which has LOTS of money and tech at its disposal.

Cal-Stanford is a huge inventory piece in any potential TV right deal moving forward.
And then there are academics. That counts for the conference with Duke, UVa, Georgia Tech, etc.

Utah/Colorado is close. Near equals. TV market is bigger in Denver, but for recent success and priority within their respective market, Utah has a big advantage (Utah-BYU is a big inventory piece, even if it only once every other year). Deion is big right now, but I also don't anticipate he will be the HC there in 4-5 years either (time will tell).

I'd choose neither TBH: Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Wash.

If the choice is both or neither, the ACC should chose neither. Especially since this is not a long term marriage.

How are both a big deal? And if they are a big deal why did the B16 pass on them? Also why is the P10 TV contract going to stink? How does a conference with those two end up 5th in TV revenue?

Having two teams in one market makes the impact of being in that market smaller. One is plenty for the Bay area. IMO Stanford is the better choice but I understand someone arguing Cal instead.

The Bay area has money but how does that equate to money for the ACC? And why are two schools needed?

Their academics do nothing to help SU financially or academically.

Cal has no fans. How does that help for revenue in a subscription based environment?

Cal's sports brand is not good. Outside of FB and BBall they are so so. Certainly not close to Stanford's level. Their FB and BBall stink. They pretty much have done nothing since the 1960s in either sport. That will do nothing for the ACC Tier 1/2 TV rights when the team is never chosen and never competitive. As for the ACCN, again Cal has no fans. Why add them if no one is watching?

Colorado and Utah are basically the same. Utah is currently a superior FB team, but there is no reason to think that will always be the case. Colorado has the better market, Utah the better BBall history. There is nothing really sperting the two.

BYU-Utah is not a big deal nationally. Also BYU joining a conference could put the game in jeopardy. Heck they have only played 6 times in the last 10 seasons (although one of those was 2020).

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I do think there is a correlation between home attendance and football value. I think that conferences can look at that and determine how big and how passionate your following is.

I took everyone's avg over the last 4 real years, meaning 2018-2022 and not including 2020.

>100k per game
3 B16
1 SEC
The B16 has the top 3 schools but the SEC has NINE of the next 10.

>90k
5 SEC

>80k
3 SEC
1 ACC
1 B16
The B16 had only one of the last 12 (#4 through #15).

>70k
1 B16
1 Indy
1 SEC

>60k
2 ACC
2 B16
1 P10
1 SEC
The P10 finally shows up, but the B12 is still absent. Every B12 school was under 59k. Surprised that VA Tech was this high.

>50k
5 B12
4 SEC
2 ACC
2 B16
1 P10
The P10 only has 2 above 50k. The B16 surprisingly has only 9 of 16 above 50k. So nearly half the conference is under. The SEC has 15 of 16 above 51,500.

>40k
5 ACC
5 P10
4 B12
4 B16
UCLA was surprisingly in this bracket. They are lucky USC allowed them to tag along. The B16 still has 3 teams under 40k, although every school is above 35k.

>30k
4 AAC
3 B16
3 MWC
2 ACC
2 P10
1 B12
No G5 school is above 36k and ECU is the only G5 school above 34k. There is no one really worth adding. People mention San Diego State to the P10, but they would be next to last in the P10. Is that worth adding? We joke about Rutgers but Maryland is really the worse add. They averaged just under 100 more people than little old Northwestern, just barely escaping last place.

<30k
1 P10
1 SEC
2 ACC
2 B12
+ rest of the G5s
The only P5 under 25k was Duke. There 2021 was a huge outlier though, not sure why. Even dropping that season they are still dead last. We joke about Wake but Duke is even worse. Houston is last in the B12, even behind Kansas. I am sure they will get a big bump, but they will still be small. I am sure that MACtion hurts attendance but even so the highest MAC team is under 20k. UMass and Northern Illinois (surprisingly since decent program) are the only under 10k teams.


AVG by conference
SEC 75,932
B16 63,431 (a 12,501 difference)
ACC 47,004
B12 45,756
P10 43,579

Compared to the B12 and P10, the ACC has more fans, better brands, better markets, and the advantage of being in the East.


For the SEC...
P3 schools above their average: Clemson
Everyone else, including Notre Dame, would lower the SEC avg.

P3 schools in top 75% of the SEC...
ACC: Clemson, FSU, VA Tech, NC State
B12: Iowa State, BYU
P12: Washington
Outside of those ACC schools I have a hard time seeing SEC interest. Maybe BYU. The SEC might just stay at 16 or at best add 2-4 of those ACC schools to get to 18 or 20.

Based on the above I think the SEC will be:
Oklahoma, Texas, A&M, Mizzou, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Bama, Auburn
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, UGA, Florida
FSU, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, VA Tech


For the B16...
P3 schools above their average: Clemson, Notre Dame, Washington
Everyone else would lower the avg.


P3 schools in top 75% of the B16...

ACC: Clemson, FSU, VA Tech, NC State, Miami, UNC, Louisville, Pitt
I think Miami and UNC eventually end up in the B16. Outside shot for FSU or Clemson. Not on this list, I think GA Tech (for recruiting), and UVA (to entice UNC) will go as well.

B12: Iowa State, BYU, Texas Tech, Okie State, West Virginia, Kansas State, Baylor
I can't see any of these schools being on the B16's radar. The B16 has looked into Kansas before. Given their BBall and the KC market they seem worthy of a look, but how do you ignore the fact that they avg over 5500 less than the #16 team in the B16?

P12: Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona State, Colorado
I think Washington gets a B16 invite. I think Utah and Colorado are long shots at best. Arizona State would be interesting. I think Oregon only gets in as a +1. Not on this list is Stanford and Cal. I do think one of them will get into the B16. Stanford has a great athletics department but it is a smaller school and averages 5k less than Cal. the again they could help entice ND. I would chose Stanford, but Cal > Stanford is possible. Can't see both going.

Based on the above i think the B16 goes to 24 by adding teams in the West and Southeast.
Washington, Stanford, USC, UCLA
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois
Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana
Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, and one of Pitt/SU/BC
UVA, UNC, GA Tech, Miami


For the ACC...

G5s for interest:
Temple is under 25k but would get a bump in the ACC. So they wouldn't be last. But still how can you justify adding an under 30k avg school?

Army and Navy are small but they do have national appeal, and both would be ahead of Wake and Duke.

Memphis is under 32k, and are a bit too West.

USF is the 3rd best G5 in attendance. But I only see them being added to replace FSU or Miami.

UConn is under 19k. How can you justify adding them? Even if they doubled their attendance they would still be 14th in the ACC.

B12s of interest:
WV is above the ACC's avg. But how do you entice them to leave the B12? And will the ACC snob schools allow them?

UCF would lower the ACC avg, but IMO they are worth adding. But again how do you get them to leave?

Cincy would be well below the ACC avg. It would be hard to justify.

P10 for the ACC:
I think Washington State, Oregon State, Cal, and Arizona would only hurt the ACC. Stanford is the only poor attendance school the ACC should consider. The other 5 schools are all worthy. But what makes them go the the ACC and leave the rest behind?


P10 for the B12:
Colorado and Arizona are often rumored as B12 candidates. If both went to the B12 it would actually widen the gap between the ACC avg and the B12 avg.


For the P10...
SMU was mentioned as an expansion candidate, but how can you justify adding a school that avg'd less than 23k?

If you use the median instead of the avg it changes things a bit.

SEC up 75,932 to 83,874
Vandy drags down the SEC. If they doubled their attendance, they would only be 15th in the SEC. Clemson would no longer be above, and FSU is even further away.

B16 down from 63,431 to 56,764
The top three really pull the rest up. Using the median now you have additionally FSU, VA Tech, Iowa State, BYU that are above.

ACC down from 47,004 to 46,371
B12 up from 45,756 to 46,642
P12 basically even from 43,579 to 43,599
The B12 passes the ACC in this case, now 271 ahead.

When you look at the B12 recent adds, they account for 3 out of the bottom four in B12 attendance. Yes they were in the AAC the last 5 years, but their stadiums are all small. If Houston sold out every game over those 4 seasons they would be 10th. Same for Cincy, who with 4 years of sell outs is still 10th. UCF would only move up from 9th to 7th.

It just goes to show you that these G5 teams don't add a lot. USF and San Diego State have new stadiums, but with capacities of only 35k. UConn can't half fill their little 40k stadium. Memphis is the only G5 that has over 30k current attendance and a stadium over 41k.


Edit

Forgot to add that if FSU sold out every game, they would still only be 10th in SEC attendance. The SEC does not need them.

 

[TexanMark]

Cal has value if they need to take Stanford and Cal to get UW and Oregon to quit waiting for a B1G invite.

If the Northwest pair are in, would Stanford hold out to get Cal as a rival/travel partner? Is it worth it to take both because of that?

Or just switch to two (or all 3 and leverage Stanford as a 4th) of Utah, Colorado, or Arizona State and drop the Coastal theme?

I'd grab all 8 teams. Add SDSU for SoCal. Join the ACC in a big mega conference. Merge the PAC12 Network in the ACCN. Have ACCN1 and ACCN2

west coast teams all play 1 game vs the the east teams in FB. In basketball make it 2 games a year. Otherwise they are pretty isolated from one another. FB championship can rotate between Charlotte and Vegas. Basketball can play at Vegas once a decade.

 

[orangenauburn]

Five ACC schools have allegedly been looked at by the B1G. SU didn’t make the list.

https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/news/ohio-state-buckeyes-big-ten-expansion-acc-pac-12-programs-dissovlement

They must not know our game

 

[Hoo's That]

Cal and Stanford. Or neither. Would never be just one. Together, they "deliver" the Bay Area, which has LOTS of money and tech at its disposal.

Cal-Stanford is a huge inventory piece in any potential TV right deal moving forward.
And then there are academics. That counts for the conference with Duke, UVa, Georgia Tech, etc.

Utah/Colorado is close. Near equals. TV market is bigger in Denver, but for recent success and priority within their respective market, Utah has a big advantage (Utah-BYU is a big inventory piece, even if it only once every other year). Deion is big right now, but I also don't anticipate he will be the HC there in 4-5 years either (time will tell).

I'd choose neither TBH: Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Wash.

Plus, bringing in Utah gives ACC MLax an AQ for the NCAA tournament.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[BlazeOrange]

Oops...

 

[gmoney44]

Oops...

A touch of March magic and they think they are entitled to P5 status. Amateur hour.

 

[WoadBlue]

Cal and Stanford. Or neither. Would never be just one. Together, they "deliver" the Bay Area, which has LOTS of money and tech at its disposal.

Cal-Stanford is a huge inventory piece in any potential TV right deal moving forward.
And then there are academics. That counts for the conference with Duke, UVa, Georgia Tech, etc.

Utah/Colorado is close. Near equals. TV market is bigger in Denver, but for recent success and priority within their respective market, Utah has a big advantage (Utah-BYU is a big inventory piece, even if it only once every other year). Deion is big right now, but I also don't anticipate he will be the HC there in 4-5 years either (time will tell).

I'd choose neither TBH: Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Wash.

Denver is a 100% Pro sports market. If the NFL were in Salt Lake, that might ruin Utah's fan power, but that is not the case and almost certainly never will be the case.

What I think is far more likely than a core group of Pac schools being willing to join the ACC is that the ACC and Pac actually make a deal to arrange a number of games matching the tow leagues in both revenue sports every year. The SEC and BT can get away with their members playing crap OOC and still have high TV numbers. ACC football definitely cannot. But games like Syracuse-Washington, Pitt-Utah, UNC-Stanford, UVA-Cal, GT-Arizona St, NCSU-Arizona will draw very solid national TV numbers. Lat year, UNC played 2 Sunbelt teams. Even playing both Washington ST and Oregon State would draw much larger audiences.

 

[WoadBlue]

A touch of March magic and they think they are entitled to P5 status. Amateur hour.

Location, location, location. The Pac does need a school located in southern CA, and SDSU is the only realistic possibility.

What the Pac does not need is 1 school in TX.

 

[ECE '76]

But games like Syracuse-Washington, Pitt-Utah, UNC-Stanford, UVA-Cal, GT-Arizona St, NCSU-Arizona will draw very solid national TV numbers. Lat year, UNC played 2 Sunbelt teams. Even playing both Washington ST and Oregon State would draw much larger audiences.

Interesting how you gave us the game in the gray rainy skies of Seattle, while taking Palo Alto for the Heels.

Thanks for not sticking us with [expletive] Oregon at least.

 

[WoadBlue]

Interesting how you gave us the game in the gray rainy skies of Seattle, while taking Palo Alto for the Heels.

Thanks for not sticking us with [expletive] Oregon at least.

UNC has played Stanford before in both revenue sports. I'm fairly certain we've never played Washington in football.

That said, Husky Stadium is one of the most unique in the country. So playing there would be fun. If the ACC and Pac work out some such deal, I expect to UNC to be making the rounds of all of them eventually.