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

[NYCCuse826]

Well for starters it would start to establish a national identity for the ACC and show the schools not in the Big 2 conferences that the ACC is serious about being a national player. The ACC doesn't need to add marquee programs to do that but it does need to show it's willing to expand to those markets/time zones and values them. And by having schools in those areas, the ACC has 6-7 years of runway to figure out a long-term strategy that will entice the attractive Big 12 schools that the ACC wants to jump ship to the ACC.

This cycle was the death of the Pac 12. I sincerely believe the next cycle will be the death of the Big 12 or ACC. Although it could end up being a merger which makes a lot of this moot.

A national identity would have Oregon and Washington, not bottom feeders like Cal and Stanford who are irrelevant in their own region.

 

[Orangezoo]

A national identity would have Oregon and Washington, not bottom feeders like Cal and Stanford who are irrelevant in their own region.

That may be true for Cal but not for Stanford

 

[HRE Otto IV]

A national identity would have Oregon and Washington, not bottom feeders like Cal and Stanford who are irrelevant in their own region.

In fairness California is a huge state and those are the 3rd and 4th best programs in that state. If you are going to be a national conference isn't being in California better than not being there?

Also Stanford was pretty darn good from 2009-2018. Nine of those 10 seasons they were 6-3 or better in the PAC, had 3 PAC titles, and were Top 12 in six of those seasons. Their worst season in that stretch was 8-5 (5-4).

Cal on the other hand hasn't had a winning PAC record since 2009.

 

[tep624]

A national identity would have Oregon and Washington, not bottom feeders like Cal and Stanford who are irrelevant in their own region.

If Stanford is a bottom feeder than what does that make us?

 

[Orangefizz]

SDSU and SMU make a lot of sense with a national strategy. You shore up California with another really solid program FB/BB wise and then establish a beachhead in Big 12 country and send a message to other Midwest teams that the conference is serious about being there.

I live in San Diego and most people in this region do not care about the Aztecs. It certainly doesn’t shore up California other than to potentially add a higher carriage fee.

 

[kcsu]

If Stanford is a bottom feeder than what does that make us?

Pinstripe bowl team getting ready for a better bowl this year

 

[pokercuse08]

UNC women's soccer coach shares his thoughts... Basically lays out why this would be good for the conference, but bad for UNC in his opinion. But of course we all know UNC has an eventual spot in the B1G or SEC.

Dorrance: I want Cal and Stanford to die on the vine :: WRALSportsFan.com

UNC women's head coach Anson Dorrance didn't hold back when it came to talking about the ACC exploring expansion with Stanford and Cal. Dorrance acknowledged that the two programs are elite, but for the boots on the ground the move would not be good. The concern is not only from a budget and...

www.wralsportsfan.com

 

[Cusefan0307]

A national identity would have Oregon and Washington, not bottom feeders like Cal and Stanford who are irrelevant in their own region.

Stanford has made a New Years Day bowl 5 times in the past 14 seasons and won 3 of them

 

[PhatOrange]

If Stanford is a bottom feeder than what does that make us?

a shiner ?

 

[TexanMark]

I live in San Diego and most people in this region do not care about the Aztecs. It certainly doesn’t shore up California other than to potentially add a higher carriage fee.

But will they start to care in a P5 league?

 

[Chris02M]

a shiner ?

still not rutgers

 

[TexanMark]

a shiner ?

FSU thinks of us as a remora

 

[SanDiegoCuse]

But will they start to care in a P5 league?

Absolutely. Larger schools coming here will absolutely help out. Plus with the new stadium, they’ll make every game an event like the Padres have been so successful at here.

 

[TexanMark]

No words on expansion

Figure they didn't have the votes

 

[orangecuse]

If Stanford is a bottom feeder than what does that make us?

A parasite and/or algae?

 

[Orangefizz]

But will they start to care in a P5 league?

If they are winning; the locals will follow.
Fair weather fans out here…

 

[tep624]

Stanford has made a New Years Day bowl 5 times in the past 14 seasons and won 3 of them

You’d think we were Ohio St with some of these comments….

 

[Phillymoose]

I’m not sure that taking third tier Pac 12 schools does anything to address a problem that won’t arise for another 10 years.

We (the presumed ACC leftovers) cannot be certain that things will be stable for 10 years. I would wager they won't be. As time passes, the economics for certain schools to leave (or test the GOR / the real $$ impact of leaving) will become apparent.

Adding schools now gives the leftovers votes to act in the go-forward interests of the leftovers. The idea would be to set up the ACC as the '3rd best' conference after the big 2. Without adding brand name schools and the votes, the ACC might easily become the Pac12 part 2, and Syracuse could easily end up like Washington State or UConn.

Yes - it is true that adding the schools does nothing in the near-term, but I think it needs to be done as a strategic move.

 

[WoadBlue]

No words on expansion

Figure they didn't have the votes

I think what we have behind the scenes is Clemson saying that if it expansion goes down with teams that FSU and it do not approve of, then it might have to go public like FSU. As that would help make the ACC more unstable, UNC will not allow any Yes vote to pass. Right now, it is NCSU voting as UNC wants.

I understand what anybody with a large football fan base is going to be opposed even to Stanford, because the problem with the ACC now is not enough schools with those large football fan bases. But there also are other ways to improve the league's TV numbers. I think Stanford could help. I have more than doubts that Cal could help, ever. And I bet that Stanford demands Cal be its partner in joining.

So there we are. Stuck.

 

[dasher]

I think what we have behind the scenes is Clemson saying that if it expansion goes down with teams that FSU and it do not approve of, then it might have to go public like FSU. As that would help make the ACC more unstable, UNC will not allow any Yes vote to pass. Right now, it is NCSU voting as UNC wants.

I understand what anybody with a large football fan base is going to be opposed even to Stanford, because the problem with the ACC now is not enough schools with those large football fan bases. But there also are other ways to improve the league's TV numbers. I think Stanford could help. I have more than doubts that Cal could help, ever. And I bet that Stanford demands Cal be its partner in joining.

So there we are. Stuck.

I have a hard time believing that Stanford, with their future up in the air, are making demands of the ACC or any league.

 

[sutomcat]

I think what we have behind the scenes is Clemson saying that if it expansion goes down with teams that FSU and it do not approve of, then it might have to go public like FSU. As that would help make the ACC more unstable, UNC will not allow any Yes vote to pass. Right now, it is NCSU voting as UNC wants.

I understand what anybody with a large football fan base is going to be opposed even to Stanford, because the problem with the ACC now is not enough schools with those large football fan bases. But there also are other ways to improve the league's TV numbers. I think Stanford could help. I have more than doubts that Cal could help, ever. And I bet that Stanford demands Cal be its partner in joining.

So there we are. Stuck.

The ACC passed on WVU, UC, UCF, Houston a while ago. A number of others too.

Now UNC blocks Stanford and Cal too.

Who out there is UNC waiting for? Who are they willing to vote yes for?

Are they dumb enough to think ND is joining?

 

[pokercuse08]

Who out there is UNC waiting for? Who are they willing to vote yes for?

Are they dumb enough to think ND is joining?

They're going to get into either the B1G or the SEC, and they probably already have a wink wink nod nod offer from one or both. They don't want to water down their voting power in the ACC, they want to exit at their first opportunity. They're only a little behind FSU and Clemson in the pecking order to get to a big boy conference.

 

[Scooch]

Well for starters it would start to establish a national identity for the ACC and show the schools not in the Big 2 conferences that the ACC is serious about being a national player. The ACC doesn't need to add marquee programs to do that but it does need to show it's willing to expand to those markets/time zones and values them. And by having schools in those areas, the ACC has 6-7 years of runway to figure out a long-term strategy that will entice the attractive Big 12 schools that the ACC wants to jump ship to the ACC.

This cycle was the death of the Pac 12. I sincerely believe the next cycle will be the death of the Big 12 or ACC. Although it could end up being a merger which makes a lot of this moot.

I do appreciate the reply.

As for the P12 let me ask… short of them adding Texas and Oklahoma like they wanted to a decade ago, what would have kept USC and UCLA from flaking out for the B1G?

I just think a lot of people believe in this equation:

Do something + ??? = long term stability.

I don’t believe in that. But I could be totally wrong.

 

[sutomcat]

They're going to get into either the B1G or the SEC, and they probably already have a wink wink nod nod offer from one or both. They don't want to water down their voting power in the ACC, they want to exit at their first opportunity. They're only a little behind FSU and Clemson in the pecking order to get to a big boy conference.

Much respect to Woad but I tend to agree. It is not a coincidence that the ACC teams that have the best chance of getting into the B1G are the obstructionists.

The theory that they oppose any expansion because it makes it harder to dissolve the conference makes the most sense to me.

It would be great if a reputable journalist could confirm how many votes are required to dissolve the conference. That is I think, a key piece of information that anyone who follows an ACC program would appreciate getting confirmed. Yes, that is a hint…..

 

[Orangefan1]

Much respect to Woad but I tend to agree. It is not a coincidence that the ACC teams that have the best chance of getting into the B1G are the obstructionists.

The theory that they oppose any expansion because it makes it harder to dissolve the conference makes the most sense to me.

It would be great if a reputable journalist could confirm how many votes are required to dissolve the conference. That is I think, a key piece of information that anyone who follows an ACC program would appreciate getting confirmed. Yes, that is a hint…..

Last I knew I thought UNC and NC State were yes votes now I’m hearing it isn’t?