ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment | Page 194 | Syracusefan.com

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

hoopsupstate said:
Of course they’re against it. The exit fee goes up if yearly payouts go up.
Expand...
That could be negotiated.
ie. Exit fees for existing ACC members do not increase as a result of the addition of the new schools.
 
PoppyHart said:
2013: ESPN - 100 million homes
2023: ESPN (& FS1) - 71 million homes (including streaming services like YTTB & Hulu Live)

Where is the money going to come from to justify the upcoming media contracts?
Expand...
The networks are desperate for live sports, particularly football, so the stupid will likely continue
 
Killdozer said:
I like the SMU idea, I just don't know how Stanford can financially handle all it's other sports in the ACC. They will be out on an island by themselves.
Expand...
I just watched a youtube cast that said Stanford has a $1 Billion sports endowment. Yes, just for the sports programs. Same video said SMU has donors putting up $200 million to run the Ath Dept for 5 years, w/ no $ from the ACC at all for 5 years.

Cal, yes, you should be very worried about. They are the most in debt Ath program in the country.

SMU is worse than BC in terms of game attendance, TV draw, fan interest in their locale, stadium size (32,000 !), or ability to help ACC recruiting in their state. SMU is 10 spots lower than SU in the US News list. Pretty much all they have are big donors, a bad history, and no cost to the ACC for 5 years. Wake Forest 2.0 Texas version - which means they're perfect for when SU ends up with the ACC leftovers in 2036 w/ Wake, BC, Pitt, Louisville, and probably Duke.

Reading all these other posts, I hope SU is never in a league w/ UNLV, Memphis, Rice, or App State.
 
ECE '76 said:
I just watched a youtube cast that said Stanford has a $1 Billion sports endowment. Yes, just for the sports programs. Same video said SMU has donors putting up $200 million to run the Ath Dept for 5 years, w/ no $ from the ACC at all for 5 years.

Cal, yes, you should be very worried about. They are the most in debt Ath program in the country.

SMU is worse than BC in terms of game attendance, TV draw, fan interest in their locale, stadium size (32,000 !), or ability to help ACC recruiting in their state. SMU is 10 spots lower than SU in the US News list. Pretty much all they have are big donors, a bad history, and no cost to the ACC for 5 years. Wake Forest 2.0 Texas version - which means they're perfect for when SU ends up with the ACC leftovers in 2036 w/ Wake, BC, Pitt, Louisville, and probably Duke.

Reading all these other posts, I hope SU is never in a league w/ UNLV, Memphis, Rice, or App State.
Expand...
How would their attendance be if Clemson went there on a Friday night? Adding these teams makes a lot of sense but the ACC willl figure out a way to say no don’t worry everyone because you have to think outside of the box or be left behind. I say give Notre Dame what they want. How will that hurt anyone? Especially when SMU is paying their own way for five years.
 
If the ACC expands it has to go after the best schools they can get to switch over from the Big 12 and then maybe Stanford and Cal. I'm curious on what schools FSU and Clemson think move the needle?

Ironically, if expansion was actually for academic AND sports both Cal and Stanford would be no brainers. I'm curious if they could come as football and basketball partners and let the other sports play within their own region? Edit: saw this has been mentioned elsewhere in an article/post

Another question...is it possible the Big 10 by forcing divisions was part of their big picture of ruining natural rivalries thus making money even more important?
 
Last edited:
SMUPony said:
SMU might not move the needle for everyone. If the ACC sits with it’s head in the sand like the PAC did and all the schools leave and all the sudden you are the school like Washington State….they are asking, Why didn’t we expand like the Big12? Florida State and Clemson, at a minimum, are leaving, bank on that! The ACC can be the 3rd or 4th best league but you can’t act like the PAC and do nothing.
Expand...
The ACC is toast unless ND joins as a full member in football which they won’t. There are no other teams left out there that save the conference.
 
orangeinjersey said:
Expand...
ESPN and Fox saw little value in the PAC as a whole when USC and UCLA were part of the package, then less value when USC and UCLA committed to the B1G. Why would the ACC and ESPN now magically see value in two leftover teams?

Yes, academically the schools are welcome. Athletically, Stanford is good in everything but football and occasionally good there, too. Cal has failed in all sports for decades. Neither brings a fan base of note. And Cal is in debt, Rutgers style.

If ESPN cannot raise enough value to warrant paying out an additional $80MM+, why would they agree? ND is pushing for this. Though I jokingly posted a rumor of ND to the ACC, perhaps ESPN is attempting to force ND to raise the value of the package. ESPN may be calling ND’s bluff.

For the record, if ESPN is playing hardball with ND, I don’t think it will work. However, I would not put it past ESPN to do so.
 
If the ACC went to 9 games and ND gave a 6th game, I would think ESPN would be happy. Problem is 9 games hurts FSU and Clemson.

The ACC would be the only conference with schools in Florida, Texas, and California. That could help in recruiting.

Those B12 former PAC schools no longer play in Cali. Which will hurt them somewhat.

Texas kids will now want SEC first. SMU would steal a bunch of kids. Schools like Duke and Wake can steal a few now pitching better academics and more prestigious conference.

The ACC expanding would make things harder recruiting wise for the B12.
 
From Brett McMurphy: "Notre Dame, an ACC member in every sport but football, is pushing for the ACC to add Stanford and Cal, while SMU told the ACC the Mustangs would not require any league revenue for the first 5-7 years after joining, sources told Action Network.

“Notre Dame initiated us bringing on Stanford and Cal and continues to push, yet Notre Dame won’t join the ACC as a full-time member,” an ACC source said. “That doesn’t make sense to us.”

ND will push for Stanford and Cal, then bolt to the Big 10 when it makes financial sense for them someday, which is why you can't let them call the shots. SMU willing not to take any money is pathetic to me. The ACC is in an impossible spot right now and there is no way out for them in my eyes.
 
ECE '76 said:
Hard to keep up with this thread, but in case this wasn't posted: The Pac12 was intending to add SDSU and SMU before they broke up. I suspect Stanford suggested to the ACC to take SMU with them.

Anyway, check out this explanation of what happened on Friday. Quite amazing why it fell apart in hours.

Expand...
Actually, and I know this because one on my clients is best friends with head guy on SMU’s Board of Trustees…..The ACC reached out to SMU back in the late spring about joining. I know, not what people would be expecting. Of course SMU is interested, but the ACC was proactive in the case with SMU. So the ACC knows about every mascot our mascot has slept with by now.
 
The Big 12 is playing monopoly. They are buying up more properties than the ACC. The ACC is the 3rd biggest player but is hoarding its cash. This game, played that way, will make the ACC lose over time. There is zero reasons for any teams to leave the Big12 to come to the ACC, they see what’s happening too. You can bet the presidents of FSU, Clemson and maybe two other large schools are saying, “Stanford, CAL, and SMU don’t offer much to the league“. Meanwhile they know they have a date Friday night with Big10 and a Saturday afternoon delight scheduled with SEC. They don’t care about the ACC survival because this is business and you take out your enemies. SMU found out the hard way because of UT. Cal and Stanford are finding out UCLA and USC blocked expansion of the PAC a decade ago. If you guys don’t expand, love it or not….you guys are screwed.
 
They wouldn't vote yesterday. I think this tells us

a) there aren't enough votes to make this happen right now and
b) they have to be pretty close to having the votes or they just would have reported that the idea has been tabled.

Reports I have seen say FSU, Clemson and UNC are the three known no votes. Apparently at least one other school is also voting no right now.

Why did these three vote no? What do they have in common?

I suspect they won't vote yes unless as a result of doing this, they get a bigger share of the extra revenue adding these schools would bring.

They see this as a chance to extort some money.

If this is the case, it really is a shame.

Seems like they have checked out as ACC conference members.

They don't care about the long term future of the conference. They only care about taking as much money as possible from their partner's pockets.

Am I reading this wrong? Do I need to apologize to these schools?
 
SMUPony said:
The Big 12 is playing monopoly. They are buying up more properties than the ACC. The ACC is the 3rd biggest player but is hoarding its cash. This game, played that way, will make the ACC lose over time. There is zero reasons for any teams to leave the Big12 to come to the ACC, they see what’s happening too. You can bet the presidents of FSU, Clemson and maybe two other large schools are saying, “Stanford, CAL, and SMU don’t offer much to the league“. Meanwhile they know they have a date Friday night with Big10 and a Saturday afternoon delight scheduled with SEC. They don’t care about the ACC survival because this is business and you take out your enemies. SMU found out the hard way because of UT. Cal and Stanford are finding out UCLA and USC blocked expansion of the PAC a decade ago. If you guys don’t expand, love it or not….you guys are screwed.
Expand...
I just dont see the Big12 value after this contract. They have no football blue bloods, they have a basketball power house in Kansas and a couple revivals/upstarts in Houston and Baylor but what do they really offer outside of some regional affiliation?

If anything ACC and Big 12 are in the same position once FSU and Clemson leave. Both lack true powers in football but the ACC has a far better base in basketball with UNC, Duke, Virginia and a (hopefully) revitalized Syracuse and Louisville.

sutomcat said:
They wouldn't vote yesterday. I think this tells us

a) there aren't enough votes to make this happen right now and
b) they have to be pretty close to having the votes or they just would have reported that the idea has been tabled.

Reports I have seen say FSU, Clemson and UNC are the three known no votes. Apparently at least one other school is also voting no right now.

Why did these three vote no? What do they have in common?

I suspect they won't vote yes unless as a result of doing this, they get a bigger share of the extra revenue adding these schools would bring.

They see this as a chance to extort some money.

If this is the case, it really is a shame.

Seems like they have checked out as ACC conference members.

They don't care about the long term future of the conference. They only care about taking as much money as possible from their partner's pockets.

Am I reading this wrong? Do I need to apologize to these schools?
Expand...
that’s how everyone should be thinking about this so I don’t blame them at all. Conference affiliation means nothing in the grand scheme. It’s just a title slapped on to give you some collective bargaining power.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
sicem365.com

How Many Viewers Did Your NCAA Team Attract?

We take a look at EVERY FBS team and also compare league by league! Who's the top ten in viewership? How do the ACC schools rank relative to each other? How big a boost does Alabama give the SEC West? It's all inside.
sicem365.com sicem365.com
Expand...

Good info, thx. Both Cal and Stanford especially are better tv draws than I expected.
 
FSU/Clemson (and maybe the other schools with SEC rivalry games) are balking at 9 conference games but if they go to the Big10, they will be playing 9 or possibly 10 conference games (with some on the west coast).

I can see those two schools being a hang up but who else? It would be a total d*** move by VT considering they may have been left behind if not for the guv-ner of VA.

ND is pushing and FSU/Clem is pushing back. Though, if ND wants it that bad, add at least a 6th ACC game. I agree with the SMU guy, if you don't expand, it will bite us in the arse when those two teams eventually bolt in a few years. Besides, add them and maybe try to pry off ASU and Utah when the Big12 deal is up in 5 years (who clearly are holding their noses from the stench of joining the hillbilly conference).
 
When it happens. UNC will be the first school to pull out of the ACC. I don't trust those folks at all.

If I'm the ACC I sit still for a bit. The programs we are chasing will be there and if we wait long enough some Big 12 programs may be there in a few years as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crusty
    • Like
    • Love
    • Dislike
If we keep this up we are going to be left behind.
2 3
Replies
72
Views
4K
Crusty
Crusty
S
    • Like
UNLV and the ACC
Replies
0
Views
389
sufan59
S
SWC75
The Undefeated -after Week 10
Replies
0
Views
174
SWC75
SWC75
SWC75
The Undefeated - after week 11
Replies
0
Views
141
SWC75
SWC75
IthacaMatt
    • Like
Most impressive wins so far
Replies
4
Views
895
orangenauburn
orangenauburn

Forum statistics

Threads
170,338
Messages
4,885,499
Members
5,992
Latest member
meierscreek

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
220
Guests online
1,250
Total visitors
1,470
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom