Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2213]

10 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference:

BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25).

SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23).

Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17).

ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21).

PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State).

AAC -- 1 team (No. 24)

ND-- (No. 13)

 

//

Once the ACC is divided up, we could easily be looking at a top 25 of:

BIG -- 10 teams

SEC -- 10 teams

 Big 12 -- 3

PAC/MWC -- 1

AAC -- 1 

 

If this year's rankings are any indication, it's going to be harder than I was originally thinking for the B12 to get two teams in.

 

That's sort of an every year thing though.   How many times has A&M started in the top ten only to struggle to get 7 or 8 wins?   It won't look like this in October once loses start showing up.

[Al_4_ISU 12473]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t get all the ACC bashing. The ACC has terrific football and basketball teams. It has two weaknesses-a below market media contract-That is finite- and a few teams that aspire to the SP2. 
 
The B12 has two advantages-a favorable media contract (for eight years more) and no teams desired by other conferences. 
 
The B12 has more stability. That doesn’t make the football and basketball better, nor does it put 65,000 fans in the seats. 

The problem for the ACC is that their floor is lower (and much more numerous) than the Big 12 and their ceiling is publicly screaming to leave.

If their top brands were content to hold down the fort, you'd absolutely have a P4 and a healthy debate about who was the better of the 2 second tier leagues.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[statsman 5473]

It has happened before. Check out the early 20th century rankings. 
 
https://tiptop25.com/top25s_1901_1935.html

Those Ivy and northeast teams deserved their rankings. They had superior talent- they recruited prep schools, and didn’t rely on whomever enrolled and showed up. They had professional coaches before southern schools. 

[n64ra 1086]

18 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

 

This list is 100% factual so do not move from California to Texas. If the list went to all 50 states, CA would be the 50th worst state. STAY THERE.

[NCMountaineer 100]

9 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

It does make sense, in a crazy type of way that is our current reality.

For the ACC Cal/Stanford are rumored to be talking about taking $0 from their TV deal. The ACC (fully with ESPN) has a prorata claus for new members. So they can take that free money from ESPN and give it to FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami and keep them temporarily happy and stabilize their drama keeping the conference together. It’s not a great sustainable long term solution, but it’s actually not horrible in the short term.

Cal/Stanford care more about getting into the Big Ten long term but if they join the MWC/AAC they’ll lose (even more) recruits and exposure and be an afterthought. If they double down on athletics and win some in the ACC they think their is a chance the future Big Ten will take them in.

Who knows, maybe the Big 12/ACC figure out some other way to do a membership swap with West Virginia/Cincinnati going to the ACC and Cal/Stanford going the Big12. Sounds unlikely but so did Cal/Stanford joining the ACC a year ago…

hard pass.

[NCMountaineer 100]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The problem for the ACC is that their floor is lower (and much more numerous) than the Big 12 and their ceiling is publicly screaming to leave.

If their top brands were content to hold down the fort, you'd absolutely have a P4 and a healthy debate about who was the better of the 2 second tier leagues.

Exactly this. The biggest problem with the ACC is that they really have only 3 brands (4 if you include ND, I don't) with much of a following and a desire to be competitive that are at all attractive, and 2 of the 3 are actively trying to leave the conference. Their TV value is right about the same as the current Big 12, and that's WITH those 3. The second they lose two of them the value craters. 

They have 4 more programs that are actively trying to be competitive (NCSU, VT, Pitt, UL) but just don't seem to be all that appealing from a conference expansion standpoint for various reasons, aside from a "break glass in case of emergency" option. 

On the other hand there's a metric fuckton of dead weight in that conference that drags it down in a big way. 

And that's without me even touching on the arrogance of UNC and UVA here. Those two and Cal/Tree are a perfect damn match in that regard. 

[Al_4_ISU 12473]

1 minute ago, NCMountaineer said:

Exactly this. The biggest problem with the ACC is that they really have only 3 brands (4 if you include ND, I don't) with much of a following and a desire to be competitive that are at all attractive, and 2 of the 3 are actively trying to leave the conference. Their TV value is right about the same as the current Big 12, and that's WITH those 3. The second they lose two of them the value craters. 

They have 4 more programs that are actively trying to be competitive (NCSU, VT, Pitt, UL) but just don't seem to be all that appealing from a conference expansion standpoint for various reasons, aside from a "break glass in case of emergency" option. 

On the other hand there's a metric fuckton of dead weight in that conference that drags it down in a big way. 

And that's without me even touching on the arrogance of UNC and UVA here. Those two and Cal/Tree are a perfect damn match in that regard. 

I'd have to imagine in a "death of the ACC" situation, you'd be pretty excited to add the 4 that aren't as appealing to the SEC and Big 10.

[NCMountaineer 100]

10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd have to imagine in a "death of the ACC" situation, you'd be pretty excited to add the 4 that aren't as appealing to the SEC and Big 10.

oh hell yes, get back to playing VT, UL, and Pitt, and then bring NCSU into the fold? sign me up

guarantee I'd be at the first WVU game at Carter Finley. And the Pack would be a great fit in the Big 12 honestly, one of the most fun fanbases I've ever interacted with. 

this is the only game I've ever been to at their stadium though:

Edited August 18, 2023 by NCMountaineer

[Zhorn96 1773]

sounds like Cal, Furd and SMU would take $0 TV for a certain number of years and it might be for football only, not other sports (if bball is included seems murky).  That's $90Mish that can be redistributed to the other 15 teams.  I suspect it would be uneven distro to keep Clemson, FSU and possibly UNC happy.  Buys them time til the next realignment Armageddon in 2030 I suppose

[John80 157]

I don't see how Cal can take 0 dollars because they have large stadium payments to make.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Just now, John80 said:

I don't see how Cal can take 0 dollars because they have large stadium payments to make.

That's why it seems like bullshit to me.

[LTbear 4171]

19 minutes ago, John80 said:

I don't see how Cal can take 0 dollars because they have large stadium payments to make.

Probably bullshit. But a lot of Cal whale donors are apparently pulling out all the stops. 

[Zhorn96 1773]

17 minutes ago, John80 said:

I don't see how Cal can take 0 dollars because they have large stadium payments to make.

a couple different sources suggest that donors have stepped up and committed the money if needed.  The alarm bells have (apparently) finally been recognized and the impact of the AD failing would be catastrophic far beyond just "no more football." 

I'm also in the skeptical camp re: that level of engagement but there is definitely money available if they can tap into it.  That was always the issue.

[Texas Wahoo 3402]

46 minutes ago, John80 said:

I don't see how Cal can take 0 dollars because they have large stadium payments to make.

They're supposedly getting $10 million a year from UCLA, at least for now.

[Zhorn96 1773]

5 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

They're supposedly getting $10 million a year from UCLA, at least for now.

UC Regents re-affirmed that it'll be "something" but its unclear what the number is.  

[Sbbruin 21865]

16 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

UC Regents re-affirmed that it'll be "something" but its unclear what the number is.  

$2-$10, and there's NO way it'll be $10.  UCLA has the autonomous right to move, and exercised it.  The more punitive the penalty, the harder they'll fight it.

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

That's sort of an every year thing though.   How many times has A&M started in the top ten only to struggle to get 7 or 8 wins?   It won't look like this in October once loses start showing up.

That's true of every conference, though.  Teams will drop out, and others will cycle up into the top 25.  But the drops and rises aren't equal.

We already see how SEC teams (and some BIG teams) are treated differently: they drop less after a loss or rise more after a win than other conferences.

That's going to become even more pronounced in 2024.  What determines rankings ?  Perception.

And the perception from 2024 on is going to be that most of the strength in CFB will be concentrated in the BIG/SEC.

And once the ACC gets carved up, it will get even worse, with 20 of the top 25 every year being in the BIG/SEC.  

So I agree with Tk that SOS is going to be a much bigger factor in the 12 team model than it has up till now because of the concentration of brands.

//

The playoff is a tv product, and the networks that land the playoffs are going to be the same networks hyping their respective conferences all year, reinforcing the idea that these two conferences are on a different level in terms of SOS.  And while the networks will want a couple of cinderella teams in the playoff field, they'll mostly want to include the big brands that will bring in the highest ratings, which are the BIG/SEC brands, where the networks have invested the most money.

The networks, via the BIG/SEC, will make it clear to the CFP how they want to see SOS factored in.  And the BIG/SEC hold all the power from 2026 on.

Their ultimate leverage is the threat to "Go back to the old days, with the bowl system.  They can each have a four team internal playoff to determine their conference champs, with the SEC CCG in the Sugar and BIG CCG in the Rose- both on NYD.  They'll meet in the "Super College Bowl" two weeks later.  They'll say they're not excluding anyone, because they will no longer be positioning it as a playoff, and that the other conferences can set up their own bowl arrangements.  BIG/SEC will say it's a return to the old way of doing things, with poll voters deciding the best team.  

But everyone knows that in reality, that would mean the winner of the BIG-SEC bowl would be voted #1 every year.  

That threat is going to scare the living shit out of every other conference, so BIG/SEC will get what they want on the 2026 and beyond format.

I hope it's 5 champs until the ACC gets carved up, and then top 4 champs afterwards.

Assuming it becomes 5 champ format, from 2024 until ACC breakup:

BIG: 3-4

SEC: 3-4

ACC: 1-2

B12: 1-2

G5: 1

 

If we have a 4 champ format after the ACC gets carved up by the BIG, SEC and B12:

BIG: 4-5

SEC: 4-5

B12: 1-2

G5: 1

[bullet 1597]

6 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t get all the ACC bashing. The ACC has terrific football and basketball teams. It has two weaknesses-a below market media contract-That is finite- and a few teams that aspire to the SP2. 
 
The B12 has two advantages-a favorable media contract (for eight years more) and no teams desired by other conferences. 
 
The B12 has more stability. That doesn’t make the football and basketball better, nor does it put 65,000 fans in the seats. 

Except the football and basketball overall ARE better.  And have been for the last decade.

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

That's sort of an every year thing though.   How many times has A&M started in the top ten only to struggle to get 7 or 8 wins?   It won't look like this in October once loses start showing up.

Name schools get ranked in the preseason polls.  Hate to say it, but how many times has Texas been ranked in preseason polls since 2010 and finished unranked?

[bullet 1597]

12 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

That's true of every conference, though.  Teams will drop out, and others will cycle up into the top 25.  But the drops and rises aren't equal.

We already see how SEC teams (and some BIG teams) are treated differently: they drop less after a loss or rise more after a win than other conferences.

That's going to become even more pronounced in 2024.  What determines rankings ?  Perception.

And the perception from 2024 on is going to be that most of the strength in CFB will be concentrated in the BIG/SEC.

And once the ACC gets carved up, it will get even worse, with 20 of the top 25 every year being in the BIG/SEC.  

So I agree with Tk that SOS is going to be a much bigger factor in the 12 team model than it has up till now because of the concentration of brands.

//

The playoff is a tv product, and the networks that land the playoffs are going to be the same networks hyping their respective conferences all year, reinforcing the idea that these two conferences are on a different level in terms of SOS.  And while the networks will want a couple of cinderella teams in the playoff field, they'll mostly want to include the big brands that will bring in the highest ratings, which are the BIG/SEC brands, where the networks have invested the most money.

The networks, via the BIG/SEC, will make it clear to the CFP how they want to see SOS factored in.  And the BIG/SEC hold all the power from 2026 on.

Their ultimate leverage is the threat to "Go back to the old days, with the bowl system.  They can each have a four team internal playoff to determine their conference champs, with the SEC CCG in the Sugar and BIG CCG in the Rose- both on NYD.  They'll meet in the "Super College Bowl" two weeks later.  They'll say they're not excluding anyone, because they will no longer be positioning it as a playoff, and that the other conferences can set up their own bowl arrangements.  BIG/SEC will say it's a return to the old way of doing things, with poll voters deciding the best team.  

But everyone knows that in reality, that would mean the winner of the BIG-SEC bowl would be voted #1 every year.  

That threat is going to scare the living shit out of every other conference, so BIG/SEC will get what they want on the 2026 and beyond format.

I hope it's 5 champs until the ACC gets carved up, and then top 4 champs afterwards.

Assuming it becomes 5 champ format, from 2024 until ACC breakup:

BIG: 3-4

SEC: 3-4

ACC: 1-2

B12: 1-2

G5: 1

 

If we have a 4 champ format after the ACC gets carved up by the BIG, SEC and B12:

BIG: 4-5

SEC: 4-5

B12: 1-2

G5: 1

Its a hollow threat.  it would cost the SEC and Big 10 massive dollars.  Probably more than it would cost the rest (just not on a % basis).

[Texas Wahoo 3402]

9 minutes ago, bullet said:

Except the football and basketball overall ARE better.  And have been for the last decade.

The ACC has three national championships in football over the last decade and the Big 12 has none.  If you remove Clemson and FSU, that obviously changes, but while they're in the league, you cannot say the football has been better over the last decade.

[LTbear 4171]

10 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

The ACC has three national championships in football over the last decade and the Big 12 has none.  If you remove Clemson and FSU, that obviously changes, but while they're in the league, you cannot say the football has been better over the last decade.

Just depends on how you're defining "better." The average Big XII team has been better, but the ACC has much greater variance, including better performance at the top end. 

[Huckleberry 33040]

22 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

The ACC has three national championships in football over the last decade and the Big 12 has none.  If you remove Clemson and FSU, that obviously changes, but while they're in the league, you cannot say the football has been better over the last decade.

I remember when Central Texas was the area with the best high school football in the state because Lake Travis won some titles. 

Oh wait, no. Central Texas football still sucked it was just that Lake Travis and Westlake were good. 

[USC Traveler 488]

8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I don’t oppose them for political reasons, I oppose them because they don’t care about sports.

ASU fans seem pretty happy with the move, and even Utah fans have quickly changed their tune.

Cal and Stanford would have all of administrative snobbery of ASU/Utah, with absolutely nothing to bring to revenue sports.

 

ASU and Utah are trying their best, but no one does academic snobbery like Cal and Stanford- they're orders of magnitude higher than anyone else.  

ASU and Utah are like the little brothers trying to imitate Cal and Stanford so they can be just like them.

Michael Crow almost kept them aligned in a conference.  

He has a similar level of cluelessness about sports as the Bay Area schools and was close to relegating ASU to the PAC5.

Larry Scott's biggest enabler.  ASU was one of the schools (along with Kolownkoff) saying we should get $50m/yr in media rights!!!

What a fucking moron.  😂

//

 

PSA for all 2024 B12 Surlyites who are single: ASU roadtrips are a must- especially for night games.  You'll make some great memories interacting with the local talent after the games- amazing concentration of talent that is not be missed.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

That's true of every conference, though.  Teams will drop out, and others will cycle up into the top 25.  But the drops and rises aren't equal.

We already see how SEC teams (and some BIG teams) are treated differently: they drop less after a loss or rise more after a win than other conferences.

That's going to become even more pronounced in 2024.  What determines rankings ?  Perception.

And the perception from 2024 on is going to be that most of the strength in CFB will be concentrated in the BIG/SEC.

And once the ACC gets carved up, it will get even worse, with 20 of the top 25 every year being in the BIG/SEC.  

So I agree with Tk that SOS is going to be a much bigger factor in the 12 team model than it has up till now because of the concentration of brands.

//

The playoff is a tv product, and the networks that land the playoffs are going to be the same networks hyping their respective conferences all year, reinforcing the idea that these two conferences are on a different level in terms of SOS.  And while the networks will want a couple of cinderella teams in the playoff field, they'll mostly want to include the big brands that will bring in the highest ratings, which are the BIG/SEC brands, where the networks have invested the most money.

The networks, via the BIG/SEC, will make it clear to the CFP how they want to see SOS factored in.  And the BIG/SEC hold all the power from 2026 on.

Their ultimate leverage is the threat to "Go back to the old days, with the bowl system.  They can each have a four team internal playoff to determine their conference champs, with the SEC CCG in the Sugar and BIG CCG in the Rose- both on NYD.  They'll meet in the "Super College Bowl" two weeks later.  They'll say they're not excluding anyone, because they will no longer be positioning it as a playoff, and that the other conferences can set up their own bowl arrangements.  BIG/SEC will say it's a return to the old way of doing things, with poll voters deciding the best team.  

But everyone knows that in reality, that would mean the winner of the BIG-SEC bowl would be voted #1 every year.  

That threat is going to scare the living shit out of every other conference, so BIG/SEC will get what they want on the 2026 and beyond format.

I hope it's 5 champs until the ACC gets carved up, and then top 4 champs afterwards.

Assuming it becomes 5 champ format, from 2024 until ACC breakup:

BIG: 3-4

SEC: 3-4

ACC: 1-2

B12: 1-2

G5: 1

 

If we have a 4 champ format after the ACC gets carved up by the BIG, SEC and B12:

BIG: 4-5

SEC: 4-5

B12: 1-2

G5: 1

I really don't see why you are assigning as many teams from the Big 10 as the SEC. The conferences aren't remotely equal, outside of revenue.

[TKthunder2 4995]

46 minutes ago, bullet said:

Its a hollow threat.  it would cost the SEC and Big 10 massive dollars.  Probably more than it would cost the rest (just not on a % basis).

Disagree. If the SEC turned their CCG into a 4 team playoff they would get 100% of that revenue. Currently the 4 team playoff shares that money with EVERY FBS conference. The Sun Belt and CUSA, having never participated any the playoff or NY6 bowls, pull in $24 million a year from the CFP. The PAC/B12/ACC pull much more than that but I’m not going to bother to go find the exact number.

You take all of that interest and condense it down to just the SEC and they will rake in the cash for just their 4 team playoff.

The additional money for the championship games, and the normal bowl games will also still be there.

While the total payout will be less than the joint CFP, the SEC’s portion of that would absolutely be worth more than they are currently receiving. Bad for college football in general does not mean bad for the SEC.

We all saw #1 UGA play #14 LSU in the CCG in Atlanta. With 11 million viewers it was the most watched CCG. Now imagine after it, you had a rematch of #5 Alabama play #6 Tennessee in Miami or Houston. Then you have UGA play that winner in the Sugar Bowl on NYD. Then they play the B1G’s 4 team playoff winner (Michigan/Penn St vs Ohio St/USC) mid January…the networks would piss themselves for that guaranteed content.

Sure, no K State/TCU/Utah/Clemson would hurt the overall $ some, but condensing the revenue into just the two conferences would most likely increase the amount each of their schools get to take home.

I know the idea is not popular here, but my main point is that this is not a “hollow threat”.

[statsman 5473]

When you look at draft numbers per conference, last year the SEC averaged 4.4 draft picks per school, the Big 10 almost 4, the B12 (in a great draft year for the B12) 3 draft picks per school and the ACC and PAC about 2.3. 
 
The SEC has the most players, followed by the B10. The B12 is a very well coached league. Amanda tells a story of asking one of his position coaches at LSU a quest about scheme, and was met with a blank stare. The guy’s job was to recruit and run drills. 
 
A B12 school, like TCU, can win a playoff game. They can scheme and leverage QB mobility (Duggan carried 15 times against Michigan). It is very, very improbable that they win two games. The lines aren’t big and deep enough to be that physical twice, especially when they are not used to that level of physicality. 
 
As to ACC vs B12, the B12’s real advantage is that it is very well coached. I think that’s an advantage that can be imitated. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2843]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

Cal and Stanford- they're orders of magnitude higher than anyone else.  

Well, we kind of are, aren't we? 

[Valmy77 13250]

I thought maybe the remaining 4 PAC schools could get some of the better mid majors out there on the West Coast and form a pretty decent league. Some of those Big West or MW schools.

But I guess with the academic snobbery thing...but come on! You are currently affiliated with Washington State and Oregon State!

Edited August 18, 2023 by Valmy77

[Texas Wahoo 3402]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

I remember when Central Texas was the area with the best high school football in the state because Lake Travis won some titles. 

Oh wait, no. Central Texas football still sucked it was just that Lake Travis and Westlake were good. 

If the other areas of the state hadn't won a title since 1990 and central Texas had four different teams win six total titles in that time frame, I'd probably say central Texas was better.  I generally agree that the median Big 12 school is better than the median ACC school, but I think the lack of anything at the top makes the ACC the better football conference (at least until FSU/Clemson/Miami leave).

[notre dame joe 190]

8 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t get all the ACC bashing. The ACC has terrific football and basketball teams. It has two weaknesses-a below market media contract-That is finite- and a few teams that aspire to the SP2. 
 
The B12 has two advantages-a favorable media contract (for eight years more) and no teams desired by other conferences. 
 
The B12 has more stability. That doesn’t make the football and basketball better, nor does it put 65,000 fans in the seats. 

The ACC contract is not really below market value for most of its members.  There is just a few usual suspects who could make more in the Big2 without dragging down their average very much.  

 

The new Big12mart will become known as a bargain bin. They recently signed a good contract that pays them not to sue big media for breaking up their former conference mates. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by notre dame joe

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

5 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I thought maybe the remaining 4 PAC schools could get some of the better mid majors out there on the West Coast and form a pretty decent league. Some of those Big West or MW schools.

But I guess with the academic snobbery thing...but come on! You are currently affiliated with Washington State and Oregon State!

If I were one of those better mid major presidents I'd be hard pressed to leave current league with guaranteed deal to a league that just failed very publicly for over a year to secure a media deal.

[camel at sea 589]

11 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I thought maybe the remaining 4 PAC schools could get some of the better mid majors out there on the West Coast and form a pretty decent league. Some of those Big West or MW schools.

But I guess with the academic snobbery thing...but come on! You are currently affiliated with Washington State and Oregon State!

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and the two Bay Area schools get ACC B1G invites sometime soon, but I think their best and most likely option is what you're suggesting.  Go get the academically snobby schools from the AAC and then fill in the map between Texas and California.

West:  Stanford, Cal, WSU, OSU, SDSU, Boise
East:  SMU, Tulane, Rice, Col St, Wyo, Air Forcce

If you've got Cal and Stanford donors embarrassed, and investing, along with SMU donors throwing out huge bags of NIL money, then that league could be pretty good.  It's easily the 5th best league and the champ would usually grab a CFP spot.  They could add the Zags for hoops, too.  

[0xdeadbeef 1651]

Wasn't there supposed to be another ACC vote around noon today?   Wasn't that part of the rumor package that was bundled with the "Stanford willing to take zero payout" stories. 

Please don't tell me someone on the Internet was just making shit up.

 

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2843]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and the two Bay Area schools get ACC B1G invites sometime soon, but I think their best and most likely option is what you're suggesting.  

Best approach is to get into any power conference, hold on, and hope that they can hang on when the next round of realignment takes place.  Lightning will also have to strike in the form of a generational football coach a la Harbaugh and a Phil Knight style alumnus to save the program.

Being relegated finishes Stanford football off, with very negative implications for all its other sports. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2843]

I think the Big story really is SMU.  If they get their foot in the door they are going to make something of themselves.

The chances of the Pac4 ever amounting to anything >>> SMU amounting to something

[Sbbruin 21865]

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

 

PSA for all 2024 B12 Surlyites who are single: ASU roadtrips are a must- especially for night games.  You'll make some great memories interacting with the local talent after the games- amazing concentration of talent that is not be missed.

Done it a few times.  Concur.

[Sbbruin 21865]

1 hour ago, Valmy77 said:

I thought maybe the remaining 4 PAC schools could get some of the better mid majors out there on the West Coast and form a pretty decent league. Some of those Big West or MW schools.

But I guess with the academic snobbery thing...but come on! You are currently affiliated with Washington State and Oregon State!

Without a dissolution of the MWC, their $34 mil termination fee is untenable to join a marginal new conference.

[Satchel 6938]

10 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t get all the ACC bashing. The ACC has terrific football and basketball teams. It has two weaknesses-a below market media contract-That is finite- and a few teams that aspire to the SP2. 
 
The B12 has two advantages-a favorable media contract (for eight years more) and no teams desired by other conferences. 
 
The B12 has more stability. That doesn’t make the football and basketball better, nor does it put 65,000 fans in the seats. 

Yeah, well, 65k won’t happen at UVA, Georgia Tech, NC State, UNC, Syracuse, BC, Duke or Wake either. And B12 football is perceptibly better.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Best approach is to get into any power conference, hold on, and hope that they can hang on when the next round of realignment takes place.  Lightning will also have to strike in the form of a generational football coach a la Harbaugh and a Phil Knight style alumnus to save the program.

Being relegated finishes Stanford football off, with very negative implications for all its other sports. 

I think if they can rebuild the PAC, the politics will favor them keeping the "power" designation b/c ultimately it won't matter much.  The "Top 6 conference champions" format for the CFP doesn't directly specify anything re: Power vs. G5.  Hypothetically, you could get a Sun Belt and American champion in over the PAC champion anyway.  Continuing to allow them to insist that they're a "power" conference won't make their media deal competitive.  The designation is ultimately pretty meaningless.  

[CustersDoctor 584]

6 hours ago, John80 said:

I don't see how Cal can take 0 dollars because they have large stadium payments to make.

They be paying their stadium loan with all the FTX bitcoin they got.

[Valmy77 13250]

1 hour ago, Sbbruin said:

Without a dissolution of the MWC, their $34 mil termination fee is untenable to join a marginal new conference.

I figured maybe the MWC would join the PAC or something.

[camel at sea 589]

30 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Yeah, well, 65k won’t happen at UVA, Georgia Tech, NC State, UNC, Syracuse, BC, Duke or Wake either. And B12 football is perceptibly better.

Yep.  It also wouldn't exactly be shocking if Texas Tech, ISU, and BYU all have capacities > 65K a decade from now.  All three are close and have the enrollment numbers to support it..    

[FartingDreamer 138]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Yeah, well, 65k won’t happen at UVA, Georgia Tech, NC State, UNC, Syracuse, BC, Duke or Wake either. And B12 football is perceptibly better.

I guarantee you that we will have 65k+ at one or two of our home games this year.  Demand for tickets is through the roof.   Hell, we had nearly 67k in 2004 for our game vs Notre Dame.  

Edited August 18, 2023 by FartingDreamer

[Jasper_Jester 356]

50 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

They be paying their stadium loan with all the FTX bitcoin they got.

Man, I hope they sold it for cash as soon as they got it. But, I wonder if they even ever got it. 

[Jasper_Jester 356]

6 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

$2-$10, and there's NO way it'll be $10.  UCLA has the autonomous right to move, and exercised it.  The more punitive the penalty, the harder they'll fight it.

yeah, I'm pretty sure UCLA is paying whatever the Regents say they have to pay. Who told you the campuses have individual autonomy? 

[USC Traveler 488]

7 hours ago, bullet said:

Its a hollow threat.  it would cost the SEC and Big 10 massive dollars.  Probably more than it would cost the rest (just not on a % basis).

It's not a hollow threat.  Just like the regular season, those two conferences would get the vast majority of the media money for the postseason.

BIG/SEC would make massive $$$ from each having their own 4 team playoffs: first 2 games in each conference on campus, with CCGs in Rose and Sugar on NYD.  They wouldn't have to share that with anyone.  Then add in a "Super College Bowl" that they split 50/50.  That would be seven games total, and they would get the same guaranteed money every year.   The 12 team playoff will have 11 games to sell, but BIG/SEC have to share the money with the ACC, B12 and G5, so the money could easily be similar, or even greater, by doing their own thing.

Personally, I want to see 4-5 champs qualify, with 7-8 at larges, as a full breakaway would suck for fans and it would be be a disaster in the long run financially, when people like the folks in this thread check out once their teams no longer have access.  

But the threat is credible because CFB history has few very examples where schools/conferences prioritized the long-term good of the game over short term financial benefits, and the BIG/SEC would dominate the money and suck up most of the CFB oxygen if they did this.

If you're in the ACC, B12 or G5, that's going to scare you.  I think BIG/SEC will use that threat to get the revenue splits they want and to make sure SOS is factored into the equation in the way that they want.  They'll push for 12 at-large bids, but hopefully BIG/SEC will compromise with 5 champs for now, dropping to 4 once the ACC melts away like we just saw with the PAC.

[USC Traveler 488]

6 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I really don't see why you are assigning as many teams from the Big 10 as the SEC. The conferences aren't remotely equal, outside of revenue.

The polls disagree with you.  AP had 8 future BIG and SEC teams in top 25.  Coaches had SEC 8 and BIG 7, with Iowa as #26.

I posted the below yesterday, as part of the SOS debate.  SOS is driven by perception:

 

2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference:

BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25).

SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23).

Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17).

ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21).

PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State).

AAC -- 1 team (No. 24)

ND-- (No. 13)

 

//

Once the ACC is divided up, if ND goes BIG we could easily be looking at a top 25 of:

BIG -- 10 teams

SEC -- 10 teams

 Big 12 -- 3

PAC/MWC -- 1

AAC -- 1 

[cochamps 1879]

n before 666!

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

It's not a hollow threat.  Just like the regular season, those two conferences would get the vast majority of the media money for the postseason.

BIG/SEC would make massive $$$ from each having their own 4 team playoffs: first 2 games in each conference on campus, with CCGs in Rose and Sugar on NYD.  They wouldn't have to share that with anyone.  Then add in a "Super College Bowl" that they split 50/50.  That would be seven games total, and they would get the same guaranteed money every year.   The 12 team playoff will have 11 games to sell, but BIG/SEC have to share the money with the ACC, B12 and G5, so the money could easily be similar, or even greater, by doing their own thing.

Personally, I want to see 4-5 champs qualify, with 7-8 at larges, as a full breakaway would suck for fans and it would be be a disaster in the long run financially, when people like the folks in this thread check out once their teams no longer have access.  

But the threat is credible because CFB history has few very examples where schools/conferences prioritized the long-term good of the game over short term financial benefits, and the BIG/SEC would dominate the money and suck up most of the CFB oxygen if they did this.

If you're in the ACC, B12 or G5, that's going to scare you.  I think BIG/SEC will use that threat to get the revenue splits they want and to make sure SOS is factored into the equation in the way that they want.  They'll push for 12 at-large bids, but hopefully BIG/SEC will compromise with 5 champs for now, dropping to 4 once the ACC melts away like we just saw with the PAC.

When you say the “the B1G/SEC will use that threat” don’t you mean the networks will?