Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HRE Otto IV, post: 4688734, member: 5685"]
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).
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?