Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HRE Otto IV, post: 4734650, member: 5685"]
Funny I was told here that adding Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Stanford, and Cal would dilute the ACC payout but now people are saying we should take Stanford, Cal, Washington State, and Oregon State?

I think taking Stanford, Cal, SMU makes a lot of sense due to SF, Dallas, and ACCN fees. Having 17 in FB is not ideal but it is workable, even more so if ND adds a 6th ACC game.

If you want an even number I think taking the above 3 and Washington State is a possibility. I don't see the value in Oregon State. Not a big state (ACCN) and no big market (OTA). I think you can say the same about San Diego State and UNLV. They don't add big states (ACCN) or big markets (OTA). All the teams just mentioned have poor attendance, which doesn't indicate a strong following.

With 4 additions you can keep the current 3 perm rivals for current ACC members (which I oppose having 4 is better) and you can have the 4 new teams play each other for their 3 perm rivals. That IMO is the main advantage to adding 4 now. But maybe ESPN wants 3+ Western teams for ACC After Dark. Having only 2 makes it harder to have as many games.

IMO it is better to stay at 17 and have 4 perm rivals. Then wait out the B12. No need to go after Western teams now who don't add a whole lot.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?