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

[NKR1978]

I’m starting to think that losing Clemson to another conference won’t be the end of the world.

Dabo has been awesome. The 35 years or so before him - not so much. I think they will settle into Ole Miss, Wisconsin level - very good. But not playoff level.

Given the NIL trajectory - I expect Miami to regain its old prominence. It’s simply too appealing a place for young kids - and there’s so much $$$ sloshing around there.

I feel the same about SMU - long term.

FSU leaving will hurt more. But them. Get them out of the conference.

We are along for the ride - whatever happens. Not really meaningful on a national level anymore - but maybe can have a good year every so often. Kinda like Missouri or Baylor.

When conferences get weaker other teams tend to rise up. Look at WVU after Miami and VT left. They filled the void. Smart scheduling and easier conferences will help.

The media seems to think NC State, Louisville, Pitt, Duke, UNC, Virgnia, Miami and Virginia Tech all have a foot out the door, but if that was the case they could have dissolved the conference. And I'm not sure where they're all going.

 

[longtimefan]

When conferences get weaker other teams tend to rise up. Look at WVU after Miami and VT left. They filled the void. Smart scheduling and easier conferences will help.

The media seems to think NC State, Louisville, Pitt, Duke, UNC, Virgnia, Miami and Virginia Tech all have a foot out the door, but if that was the case they could have dissolved the conference. And I'm not sure where they're all going.

Ah, there's the rub.

 

[SURules]

Ah, there's the rub.

If the 4 go into the SEC, those schools aren’t going anywhere. The B1G isn’t taking them so the Big 12?

 

[orangecuse]

post it online and you open yourself to get made fun of, sorry

Made fun of...right.

Or, more likely, a poster who may think he has an accurate/thorough read on someone from an in jest type post of another is, well IMO, speaks for itself.

 

[Cuse181]

Made fun of...right.

Or, more likely, a poster who thinks he has an accurate/thorough read on someone from an in jest type post of another is, well, I'll just say, speaks for itself.

It’s a Public forum bud, if you don’t like it, put him on ignore

 

[orangecuse]

It’s a Public forum bud, if you don’t like it, put him on ignore

IMO, bud, folks who place people on ignore is a sign of weakness, I'm taking my ball and going home kind of deal. In these circumstances, I prefer to engage in spirited debate instead, arguing the issue(s), etc. without making anything personal.

If it gets to a point of such back and forth that it becomes somewhat nauseating, etc., then I'll respond by advising I'm no longing engaging in this particular conversation and end with agreeing to disagree.

 

[Cuse181]

IMO, bud, folks who place people on ignore is a sign of weakness, I'm taking my ball and going home kind of deal. In these circumstances, I prefer to engage in spirited debate instead, arguing the issue(s), etc. without making anything personal.

If it gets to a point of such back and forth that it becomes somewhat nauseating, etc., then I'll respond by advising I'm no longing engaging in this particular conversation and end with agreeing to disagree.

Whatever you say man, I’m giving you a reasonable suggestion. You don’t want to take it, that’s fine. The user made a very weird comment, he received a response and you white-knighted.

At the end of the day, public forums are for discourse, and making jabs at people posting things completely unrelated to the topic at hand is a subtle way of saying “you’re looking like an idiot.

 

[Sherman20]

When conferences get weaker other teams tend to rise up. Look at WVU after Miami and VT left. They filled the void. Smart scheduling and easier conferences will help.

The media seems to think NC State, Louisville, Pitt, Duke, UNC, Virgnia, Miami and Virginia Tech all have a foot out the door, but if that was the case they could have dissolved the conference. And I'm not sure where they're all going.

Lol, no the media doesn’t think that. The B1G and the SEC aren’t interested in schools like Louisville (total insanity), NC State, Virginia Tech Pitt, Duke, Wake, Syracuse. Come on, let’s get real. Even Virginia is a huge stretch at this point. The Big 10 wanted them and UNC before (under Delaney), but now the conference is bloated with four new PAC 12 schools, so they’re not expanding right now. UNC is a target, yes, but the GOR is the roadblock and will remain so for another decade. And in that time, the TV rights bubble is gonna burst.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

ESPN can move over whomever they want now. The problem is why would they? There is no incentive.

Maybe UNC and VA Tech would make sense now given the SECN.

Clemson and FSU they own cheap. Why pay more for their content while devaluing the ACC?

 

[shantydaze]

The problem with being away from a thread for so long is there is much to comment on.

Sadly the civil war continues for way too many. I was on vacation in Florida almost 10 years ago, not too long after SU joined the ACC. Went kayaking on a group tour at a preserve. We had SU shirts on and they paired us (my husband and myself) up with a father/adult daughter couple. Exchanged pleasantries at first. Then the father started on a mini tirade how SU, BC, Pitt etc didn’t belong in the ACC. Huh - wondered where this came from - strange. He said he was a Duke professor for over 15 years, his daughter, was a Duke alum and current grad student. Funny because when I asked him where he was from - Indiana - I asked him if he felt welcomed when he started if his attitude was prevalent at Duke about non southerners. Ignored it except for saying southerners and midwesterners had much in common. I was shocked at his dismissive, insulting attitude from out of the blue. (His daughter was quiet)He went off how we weren’t Atlantic nor coastal like all the other teams. I told him Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, new member Louisville (who he strangely didn’t mention) were almost just as far if not further west but he said Virginia and Georgia’s boundaries were on the Atlantic though but he wasn’t happy when I reminded him that New York was too. (Obviously not a geography professor) He said he thought it would end up breaking up the conference because other conference members were even more upset than Duke. We purposely drifted away for the rest of that 2 hour trip. He made it clear that northerners weren’t welcome in the ACC. Had hoped that he was just some random Duke snob weirdo but all this current stuff makes me wonder.

I don’t want this to become a political debate. If so I’ll move it. It was just a true story that all these conference threats brought it all back to me.

As an upper midwesterner, I would say that the Midwest and the South both share a healthy dislike for New York City (which for our less cosmopolitan residents would be defined as all of New York state, New Jersey, and Connecticut), Boston (New England), and Philadelphia (well, that's probably just Philly). After that, it becomes more nuanced. Indiana fits in well with the Bible Belt, so I can see why someone from Indiana and living in North Carolina would see the connection (it is estimated that at its peak in the early twentieth century, thirty percent of adult males who had been born in Indiana were in the KKK). The upper Midwest is more of a mix of rust belt and natural areas (I am struggling to come up with a moniker for Wisconsin, Minnesota, and western/upper Michigan).

. . .

Dabo has been awesome. The 35 years or so before him - not so much. I think they will settle into Ole Miss, Wisconsin level - very good. But not playoff level.

. . .

As a Wisconsin alum, I am a little offended by this. Not the "very good, but not playoff level," but being stacked alongside Ole Miss. I am not sure the right team to use, but Ole Miss seems wrong. Utah? Maybe. USC, Texas, or Penn State have not made the playoffs, but those also see wrong for the opposite reason. Honestly, Washington and Oregon would seem the most appropriate, but both have a playoff appearance, so I guess not.

Alright, back to the real topic at hand, I liked the 4 team not a pod, but its really a pod idea. I would be on board with Pitt, BC, Miami, and Stanford. Not being from the Northeast and with my attending Syracuse in the late-90s, Which means, I would like to play Miami annually, one of BC/Pitt, a traditional ACC school with my first preference being Duke, and Stanford.

SMU just does not move the needle for me. I am not convinced playing in DFW is going to specifically help recruiting Texas kids that have an option to stay in-state and play in the ACC, SEC, or XII. I do want to play annually in either Florida or California as I think the opportunity (especially if in the second half of the season) would be a selling point in getting kids to Syracuse when the negative recruiters are telling the kids about the winters.

 

[baggerbob]

No. All of this is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, because, as I've long held, 20-32 teams are going to leave NCAA football so their players won't have to go to class anymore. Anything that happens before that is temporary.

Georgia already did that back in the 80's.

 

[Moontan]

Can someone tell me what UVA brings to the table for the SEC or Big10?

They bring Hoo's That

 

[orangefog]

ESPN can move over whomever they want now. The problem is why would they? There is no incentive.

Maybe UNC and VA Tech would make sense now given the SECN.

Clemson and FSU they own cheap. Why pay more for their content while devaluing the ACC?

That's the part I don't understand. Why wouldn't ESPN do what they can to keep the ACC in a good position. They own the SEC and the ACC. That's two of the top three. That is a good position. If I were ESPN, I would be doing what I can to keep those two conferences in order.

 

[anomander]

The problem with being away from a thread for so long is there is much to comment on.



As an upper midwesterner, I would say that the Midwest and the South both share a healthy dislike for New York City (which for our less cosmopolitan residents would be defined as all of New York state, New Jersey, and Connecticut), Boston (New England), and Philadelphia (well, that's probably just Philly). After that, it becomes more nuanced. Indiana fits in well with the Bible Belt, so I can see why someone from Indiana and living in North Carolina would see the connection (it is estimated that at its peak in the early twentieth century, thirty percent of adult males who had been born in Indiana were in the KKK). The upper Midwest is more of a mix of rust belt and natural areas (I am struggling to come up with a moniker for Wisconsin, Minnesota, and western/upper Michigan).



As a Wisconsin alum, I am a little offended by this. Not the "very good, but not playoff level," but being stacked alongside Ole Miss. I am not sure the right team to use, but Ole Miss seems wrong. Utah? Maybe. USC, Texas, or Penn State have not made the playoffs, but those also see wrong for the opposite reason. Honestly, Washington and Oregon would seem the most appropriate, but both have a playoff appearance, so I guess not.

Alright, back to the real topic at hand, I liked the 4 team not a pod, but its really a pod idea. I would be on board with Pitt, BC, Miami, and Stanford. Not being from the Northeast and with my attending Syracuse in the late-90s, Which means, I would like to play Miami annually, one of BC/Pitt, a traditional ACC school with my first preference being Duke, and Stanford.

SMU just does not move the needle for me. I am not convinced playing in DFW is going to specifically help recruiting Texas kids that have an option to stay in-state and play in the ACC, SEC, or XII. I do want to play annually in either Florida or California as I think the opportunity (especially if in the second half of the season) would be a selling point in getting kids to Syracuse when the negative recruiters are telling the kids about the winters.

I actually think SMU is going to get good really quick. They are loaded with money and already have a great NIL collective to give out to recruits throughout Texas. They can easily pass by TCU. They’re in prime location with talent everywhere you look at boosters ready to pay for it. They obviously knew what they were doing by not taking ACC conference payouts for (was jt 7 years)?

 

[shantydaze]

I actually think SMU is going to get good really quick. They are loaded with money and already have a great NIL collective to give out to recruits throughout Texas. They can easily pass by TCU. They’re in prime location with talent everywhere you look at boosters ready to pay for it. They obviously knew what they were doing by not taking ACC conference payouts for (was jt 7 years)?

Even more of a reason why I would not want SMU to be in a pod with Syracuse. As to recruiting, I was referring to Syracuse recruiting Texas kids by playing in Texas every two years, not SMU's recruiting.

I will admit that I do not watch a lot of games outside of Syracuse and Wisconsin. Occasionally, I will have some interest in a Texas game and to a lesser extent aTm. I have never sought out a game because any of the other Texas schools were playing in it (other than the CFP and TCU last year). This is why SMU does not move the needle for me. At some point I can see my apathy turning into dislike based on how the school bought its way into the ACC as it reminds me of two many other annoying rich kids with daddy and mommy's money, but I digress.

From purely selfish reasons, I would rather have Stanford or Cal as I enjoy visiting Northern California more than Texas.

 

[Hoo's That]

My guesstimate on a couple of games that will be on the 2024 schedule (regardless of format):
9/28 - UVa @ Cal; Stanford @ Duke
Late October - Cal @ UNC; Wake @ Stanford

 

[CousCuse]

My guesstimate on a couple of games that will be on the 2024 schedule (regardless of format):
9/28 - UVa @ Cal; Stanford @ Duke
Late October - Cal @ UNC; Wake @ Stanford

CousCuse approves of this message.

 

[NKR1978]

I actually think SMU is going to get good really quick. They are loaded with money and already have a great NIL collective to give out to recruits throughout Texas. They can easily pass by TCU. They’re in prime location with talent everywhere you look at boosters ready to pay for it. They obviously knew what they were doing by not taking ACC conference payouts for (was jt 7 years)?

If a coach was serious about building generational wealth, SMU would be one of the schools to do it at.

 

[atom58]

That isn't true though. They had a packed stadium and huge national interest and press when they were good.

That always happens with winning. It brings out the fans. If you guys were to beat Clemson and FSU, tickets would be scalped. You would never have seen anything like it.

 

[atom58]

Yes.

FSU is perennially unhappy about money. Back in 2012, they wanted more money immediately and ESPN said sure, you can get a minor increase if you sign up for a longer time.

The contract was extended again in 2016 to again get a small increase in fees (and the ACC Network).

FSU, also perennially stupid, pushed these through and screwed the whole conference for 20 more years.

ACC, ESPN agree to extension through 2026-27

For the Atlantic Coast Conference, more teams and more games means a lot more TV money. The ACC and ESPN have extended their television deal through the

thedailyrecord.com

ACC, ESPN extend deal to 2036 that includes new ACC Network

Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford says the league has extended its media deal with ESPN through the 2035-36 season, a deal that includes the launch of an ACC TV channel in three years

www.usatoday.com

They signed to get more $$$ and stability as the others did. This basically saved the ACC over the years. The gravy train from these cable TV conference channels will one day end. The last graph I saw showed the downward trend (over some past years) of not only cable TV but broadcast TV too! On the other hand, streaming has an upward trend. There may be some floor to this graph which is not zero but that floor will not likely support the conferences to the extent they previously had so they will have to look for $$$ elsewhere.

I do not support FSU going to the SEC. I doubt they would be admitted as the SEC still remembers 1990 when they thought FSU would join and then it came out in the press that FSU was talking to the ACC so the SEC publicly removed FSU from consideration. Then ACC initially did not have the votes - Duke and UNC to my memory voted against it at first and there was a danger FSU was going nowhere. To this day, whenever FSU plays in any post season game with SEC referees the bias is obvious, years after they fact that we chose the ACC.

One other reason is the famous SEC Bagman. They do exist - that SB Nation site had an interview with one. A friend of mine who was close to the boosters told me a leading running back prospect who signed with FSU told Bowden an SEC team had offered him $50 thousand - this was back in the 1980s. He wanted to play at FSU and later went to the NFL. FSU did not pay him to play. Let me add that this is not limited to the SEC. Suspicions are that several prominent teams in the Big10 and Pac12 are involved too - "keeping up with the Joneses". Someone at an ACC sports blog said he personally knew of one prominent Pac12 team when he lived out West providing $$$ and even drugs and prostitutes at player parties. I do not know this for a fact but believe it. Meanwhile the NCAA is apparently too afraid to do anything about it. That would leave only USG and well ...

 

[Hoo's That]

They signed to get more $$$ and stability as the others did. This basically saved the ACC over the years. The gravy train from these cable TV conference channels will one day end. The last graph I saw showed the downward trend (over some past years) of not only cable TV but broadcast TV too! On the other hand, streaming has an upward trend. There may be some floor to this graph which is not zero but that floor will not likely support the conferences to the extent they previously had so they will have to look for $$$ elsewhere.

{snip}

This is the heart of the matter and a bit deceptive. How much will the content suppliers get when just about everything goes to streaming? When it comes to "organized streamers" like YouTube TV and Hulu, there's probably not much difference financially to the suppliers than they get from the cable companies. No one is going to get this stuff for free. Even if you don't go with an organized streamer and totally go it alone, you're going to have to pay for the games. I have a feeling that individual streamers will pay more for the service than subscribers to an organized streamer will.

 

[OburgOrange]

 

[dasher]

If I was Oregon st., I wouldn't be laughing at too much these days.

 

[sutomcat]

If I was Oregon st., I wouldn't be laughing at too much these days.

Their stadium holds 35K. Yes, they shouldn’t be laughing at anyone.

 

[Millhouse]

These pictures are almost always lies. The band is playing