Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the source of the Stanford veto.  I've always believed the rumor because it's just so fucking Stanford.  Which is why I was so fucking disappointed that they may have been a reason we didn't get into the Pac12 and now are going to the bubba conference. 

None of which alters the idea that they have a brand that still, despite the last decade, should remain in the game. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2023 at 10:34 PM, USC Traveler said:

 

USC self-sanctioning the program with idiotic AD and HC hires bathed the program in shame, but it didn't kill the conference.  USC still had plenty of value, as shown by how much the BIG's tv deal grew after the LA schools were added.  Arrogance, incompetence and gross negligence killed the PAC.

The difference between the BIG/SEC vs the PAC is that there were always multiple top level programs in the BIG/SEC which have won National Titles and have the credibility to to carry the conference when other top level programs are down.  When Bama was down from the late '90s until Saban's arrival, the Vols, LSU and UF all won titles.  Bama, Auburn, LSU and UGA have all won titles since.

OSU carried the BIG for while UM slumbered, and now UM is back on top, with PSU looking like they might make a leap.

//

Due to geography, the only chance for the PAC to have that type of depth at the top was to add UT and OU.  They were the only possible blueblood additions, and they would have made it possible for the PAC to stand on equal footing with the BIG/SEC.

Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions.  They were the only "No" vote back in the day.

Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU, Tech, OSU, etc in 2010 b/c of LHN.  

Stanford, Cal and WSU were three of the ringleaders again in rejecting OU and OSU the following year.

They didn't want the added competition, they didn't want to have unequal Tier 3 revenue, and they didn't want to be associated with Tech, OSU, or aggy.

Think about that- Stanford passed on UT as a conference member twice!!!  Cal passed on UT once, and both Stanford and Cal passed on OU twice.

And you want to say they were "minor players" in the PAC's demise ?  🤣  

USC shitting the bed for a decade was like someone in hospice with terminal cancer getting psoriasis- the damage was done long before.

Cal and Stanford were the tip of the spear that inflicted the fatal wound on the PAC16 deal- the PAC's last chance to be a true peer of the SEC/BIG.

//

You can spin whatever fairytale you want, but the PAC was dead the day every school not named USC or UCLA rejected UT, OU and the gang over LHN/equal revenue sharing.  We talked about it in detail over on the old Shaggy realignment thread.  Once it was no longer possible to add bluebloods, it was just a matter of time before the revenue gap caused the top programs to leave.  Like Thanos, it was inevitable. 

 

PS- To double down on their previous realignment 5D chess moves, Stanford and Cal were part of the decision-making team that turned the PAC into a pile of ash.  The PAC could have been a stable conference making B12 money, but the schools thought they were worth $50m/yr, when ESPN offered $30m.

Can't blame that on USC, as the LA schools weren't part of those decisions.  That's all on Klownkoff and the 10 idiots who listened to him.

 

 

 

Wow, not sure that i realized WSU was part of the no camp on expansion both times. One of my favorite things in this world is watching unfounded arrogance end in total disaster.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why should the rest of the country give even half a fuck about the Stanford brand when their own fans and alumni don't?

Yeah, but... we're Stanford! Ask folks around here how that turns out when everything underneath it is going down like the Hindenburg. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why should the rest of the country give even half a fuck about the Stanford brand when their own fans and alumni don't?

I mean, the stanford (and Cal) brand is pretty fucking incredible in just about everything except football. Their brand is rock solid. Not everything revolves around sports. It's still *COLLEGE* Football, so you know, one of the most successful and important colleges in the world should probably matter to a degree. Switching to talking about Cal specifically, BSD alone is worth more than any football program by far. Literally everything apple makes runs on BSD.

Edited by WelfareBuysMyWeed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Wow, not sure that i realized WSU was part of the no camp on expansion both times. One of my favorite things in this world is watching unfounded arrogance end in total disaster.

It gets better:

One of the other schools that led the charge to reject UT, OU and the gang over LHN, and then rejected OU/OSU the next year was.............     

Oregon St.  

Their President at the time (Ed Rey), along with ASU's Crow, were Larry Scott's two biggest supporters from beginning to end.

Poetic justice that four of the five schools that were most responsible for killing the PAC16 deal ended up homeless.

Too bad ASU didn't get stranded also.  It was close.  Crow tried to keep his lips attached to Stanford's ass until the bitter end.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HookEm said:

Who cares.  Harvard has a better academic reputation than Stanford. Nobody is trying to add them to the ACC.  The academics don't matter at all.

Actually, it's a huge shame that places like Yale aren't in major conferences. They have a better athletic history than most of the ACC put together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HookEm said:

Who cares.  Harvard has a better academic reputation than Stanford. Nobody is trying to add them to the ACC.  The academics don't matter at all.

Stanford and Cal should form a league with Rice, SMU, Tulane, etc.  Pull in Duke and Georgia Tech eventually when the ACC crumbles.  Be the "smart conference that also cares a little about sports".  Own it.  Stop partnering with the Oregon States of the world.

They’d all love to do that but would also like $38mm a year also if it’s not too much trouble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, if these smart schools decided that they REALLY care about sports, they could dominate with NIL.  Harvard has the resources to pay the best blue chips more NIL money than anyone, including Texas.  They have the money to get a coach like Urban Meyer and a kick-ass staff if they really wanted to.  But they don't.  Yet.

I think that there will be a school in the next 20 years that gives it a shot though.  Maybe it will be Stanford. The cycle to relevance is just so much quicker now. Back 20 years ago, schools had to lure high school recruits with facilities, pageantry and history.  That stuff took decades to develop.  The only short-cut was maybe to go the juco route.

Now, money paid directly to players will be the biggest deciding factor. Developing a chance to make the NFL will be a distant second priority. Everything else will be way down the list.  A rich, motivated school can clear those two hurdles in a single year if it is a priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HookEm said:

As an aside, if these smart schools decided that they REALLY care about sports, they could dominate with NIL.  Harvard has the resources to pay the best blue chips more NIL money than anyone, including Texas.  They have the money to get a coach like Urban Meyer and a kick-ass staff if they really wanted to.  But they don't.  Yet.

I think that there will be a school in the next 20 years that gives it a shot though.  Maybe it will be Stanford. The cycle to relevance is just so much quicker now. Back 20 years ago, schools had to lure high school recruits with facilities, pageantry and history.  That stuff took decades to develop.  The only short-cut was maybe to go the juco route.

Now, money paid directly to players will be the biggest deciding factor. Developing a chance to make the NFL will be a distant second priority. Everything else will be way down the list.  A rich, motivated school can clear those two hurdles in a single year if it is a priority.

They'd have to modify their acceptance requirements which is probably the biggest hurdle.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I just don't think schools that don't care enough to offer athletic scholarships will suddenly start caring enough to put together lavish NIL deals for their athletes.

The schools don't pay the NIL, the fans do. And I've seen Ivy League dudes spend ridiculous amounts of money on bets on Yale football games. People who go to the Ivy League are ultra competitive and very much view their school's success as their own.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

I mean, the stanford (and Cal) brand is pretty fucking incredible in just about everything except football. Their brand is rock solid. Not everything revolves around sports. It's still *COLLEGE* Football, so you know, one of the most successful and important colleges in the world should probably matter to a degree. Switching to talking about Cal specifically, BSD alone is worth more than any football program by far. Literally everything apple makes runs on BSD.

Mac OS is a derivative of FreeBSD (open source) & 4.4BSD Lite2. Cal Berkeley is no longer involved in BSD development (since 1995)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, HookEm said:

Who cares.  Harvard has a better academic reputation than Stanford. Nobody is trying to add them to the ACC.  The academics don't matter at all.

Stanford and Cal should form a league with Rice, SMU, Tulane, etc.  Pull in Duke and Georgia Tech eventually when the ACC crumbles.  Be the "smart conference that also cares a little about sports".  Own it.  Stop partnering with the Oregon States of the world.

That's a really misinformed statement and you should feel bad about it.  Stanford's academic rep has been on the same level as Harvards for the past few decades under any measuring stick. But more relevant to this discussion, the athletic success has been way about the schools you mention.  Stanford has had success in NY bowl games in recent memory, but those schools don't come close to Stanford in terms of frankly ANY sports other than Duke in basketball. 

We live in a new sports world and Stanford doesn't fit in any currrent model very well, but your post pretty dumb.

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, USC_TMB said:

Mac OS is a derivative of FreeBSD (open source) & 4.4BSD Lite2. Cal Berkeley is no longer involved in BSD development (since 1995)

It's literally called the Berkeley Standard Distribution. It's a cachet and weight you can't buy. Cal Berkeley  has a brand that is impeccable, hence my post. Whether or not they actively maintain BSD, they are pivotal to history. It'd be like saying Silicon Valley has a weak brand because they field no football team, it's idiocy.

Edited by WelfareBuysMyWeed
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think it has dawned on the alumni of any of these schools in a coordinated sense yet.  The game has changed and there is very little stopping a Stanford from competing with an Alabama if the alumni are mobilized.  

I think you can look at the endowment of a school as a measure of the collective resources of their alumni.  I understand that the endowment itself can't be used for sports... but is a relative show of what the alumni are capable of if they make sports a priority.

Harvard has an endowment of $49B.  Stanford $36B.  Rice $7.8B.  USC $7.3B.  These schools have ass-loads of rich alumni.  Compare these numbers to TCU with $2.4B. Or Penn State with $4.6B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

That's a really misinformed statement and you should feel bad about it.  Stanford's academic rep has been on the same level as Harvards for the past few decades under any measuring stick. But more relevant to this discussion, the athletic success has been way about the schools you mention.  Stanford has had success in NY bowl games in recent memory, but those schools don't come close to Stanford in terms of frankly ANY sports other than Duke in basketball. 

We live in a new sports world and Stanford doesn't fit in any currrent model very well, but your post pretty dumb.

 

And yet... even the Big 12 doesn't want Stanford.

Please explain to me why the Big 12, a conference who should be desperate to raise their academic standing, wouldn't take arguably the preeminent academic university in the world, who is dying to be added?

I'll tell you why. Because academics don't matter at all in this equation.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

It's literally called the Berkeley Standard Distribution. It's a cachet and weight you can't buy. Cal Berkeley  has a brand that is impeccable, hence my post. Whether or not they actively maintain BSD, they are pivotal to history. It'd be like saying Silicon Valley has a weak brand because they field no football team, it's idiocy.

Yeah ok Scooter, you know best

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HookEm said:

Who cares.  Harvard has a better academic reputation than Stanford. Nobody is trying to add them to the ACC.  The academics don't matter at all.

Stanford and Cal should form a league with Rice, SMU, Tulane, etc.  Pull in Duke and Georgia Tech eventually when the ACC crumbles.  Be the "smart conference that also cares a little about sports".  Own it.  Stop partnering with the Oregon States of the world.

I'd honestly be cool with this 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HookEm said:

As an aside, if these smart schools decided that they REALLY care about sports, they could dominate with NIL.  Harvard has the resources to pay the best blue chips more NIL money than anyone, including Texas.  They have the money to get a coach like Urban Meyer and a kick-ass staff if they really wanted to.  But they don't.  Yet.

I think that there will be a school in the next 20 years that gives it a shot though.  Maybe it will be Stanford. The cycle to relevance is just so much quicker now. Back 20 years ago, schools had to lure high school recruits with facilities, pageantry and history.  That stuff took decades to develop.  The only short-cut was maybe to go the juco route.

Now, money paid directly to players will be the biggest deciding factor. Developing a chance to make the NFL will be a distant second priority. Everything else will be way down the list.  A rich, motivated school can clear those two hurdles in a single year if it is a priority.

You know why they have all of that money?  Among other reasons, they they don't light it on fire for football.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, HookEm said:

Please explain to me why the Big 12, a conference who should be desperate to raise their academic standing, wouldn't take arguably the preeminent academic university in the world, who is dying to be added?

Harvard was my safety school. 

You wouldn't understand a thing I said if I tried to explain it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

It's literally called the Berkeley Standard Distribution. It's a cachet and weight you can't buy. Cal Berkeley  has a brand that is impeccable, hence my post. Whether or not they actively maintain BSD, they are pivotal to history. It'd be like saying Silicon Valley has a weak brand because they field no football team, it's idiocy.

 

22 minutes ago, USC_TMB said:

Yeah ok Scooter, you know best

 

17 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

Mr. "ACKSHULLY" throwing around terms like Scooter without any self awareness, sounds like typical trojan trash.

happy eric cartman GIF by South Park

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Harvard was my safety school. 

You wouldn't understand a thing I said if I tried to explain it to you.

The Crimson  don't produce many safeties.

weird brag...

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HookEm said:

And yet... even the Big 12 doesn't want Stanford.

Please explain to me why the Big 12, a conference who should be desperate to raise their academic standing, wouldn't take arguably the preeminent academic university in the world, who is dying to be added?

I'll tell you why. Because academics don't matter at all in this equation.

I'm pretty sure it's Stanford that isn't interested in the Big XII, not the other way around. The ACC is more appealing to them strictly because of academics. I also think Stanford has a unique appeal beyond its alumni base and NorCal. They are the only Ivy league level academic institution, known nationwide, that takes athletics seriously. Their football and basketball teams have had some high level success despite the academic hurdles. Vandy and NW are the only ones that would be close, but their academic prestige to the a common person is something less than Stanford, and their athletics have largely stunk (Vandy baseball being an obvious exception). The split media contract described above could make some sense, with SMU as a geographical bridge. I wonder if Rice would be interested. They seem comfortable playing at whatever level is available, Rice athletics have never really stood out, though I love the MOB.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MadisonJumpAround said:

Can't reveal too much, but my job hears intel from a company directly tied to one of the Pac 4 left behind schools. I am just passing along what I hear and doing it here because this is basically the realignment church and seemingly a long way from my own B1G forums. 

I have been told that someone at the Pac12 (likely Luck) is pitching something pretty radical in an effort to save the Pac-12 conference outright. The proposal is a merger of sorts with the ACC, but only in Football. The basic gist I was told was that the Pac 4 would effectively "add" San Diego State and become 5. SMU would join the ACC under the auspices that it would forego any TV revenue for 7 years.  That creates a 20 team football conference. However, it would act like a conference in a conference, which it would be. The 5 west coast teams would form a Western Division. The 15 other teams would divide into 3 divisions of 5 each. This is specifically for scheduling purposes, not necessarily a prelude to conference semi-finals (but you could do that if the NCAA signed off). 

Why would the ACC agree to take on these schools? Money is what I am told. Apparently Apple is pretty hard up to get into the college FB game and Luck or someone still has them interested. The Western 5 would strike their own deal with Apple at something around $15-18 million per team. Apple would control all content in stadiums for those 5 teams. ESPN apparently kinda likes this idea, because they would likely only pay $5 million per for for the additional 6 teams or $30 million total. For such a small investment on ESPN's part they would add a ton of content - all of SMU's games home and away - and all of the Western 5's games in Eastern stadiums. Stanford @ Florida State for example.

But the primary benefit would be that the Western Teams "self finance" their accession to the ACC and that the conference would generate $30 million more that could fund the unequal revenue sharing model that Clemson and FSU seek to restore stability, which ESPN wants above all else and keeps the B1G at bay. 

As far as the other sports, the Pac 12 would add 7 teams from the West Coast Conference, including Gonzaga and Saint Mary's, to create a regional league that cuts down travel expenses and has similar sports interests. Thus, the pac-12 would exist and be a west coast league. The 5 football playing members could create an identity of sorts inside the ACC. The ACC gets to expand without blowing up their own cost model for non-revenue sports (SMU is an easy travel site in Dallas) and preserves their basketball brand. FSU and Clemson get money likely than any B12 school, but still less than B1G and SEC (but enough to compete with them). ESPN gets to settle this whole thing down for a decade or so only paying an additional $30million total (less than half one SEC school's distribution). 

I was told this is a hail mary. For all I know it is full of crap. But seems like a pretty detailed proposal and while on its face, seems crazy, kind of makes some sense. I could see why people might go for it. Again, not a prediction. I am not the Dude of West Virginia. I hear stuff all the time from these guys, sometimes right, sometimes not. This was compelling enough I wanted to share. Take that for what its worth. 

Even if it seems highly unlikely, that would be quite the thing to see play out. SMU being so desperate they are willing to whore themselves out for nearly a decade for zero dollars easily the most amusing and yet believable detail here. Heck I would throw them at least tree fiddy to be in my wacky bicoastal conference...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm pretty sure it's Stanford that isn't interested in the Big XII, not the other way around. The ACC is more appealing to them strictly because of academics. I also think Stanford has a unique appeal beyond its alumni base and NorCal. They are the only Ivy league level academic institution, known nationwide, that takes athletics seriously. Their football and basketball teams have had some high level success despite the academic hurdles. Vandy and NW are the only ones that would be close, but their academic prestige to the a common person is something less than Stanford, and their athletics have largely stunk (Vandy baseball being an obvious exception). The split media contract described above could make some sense, with SMU as a geographical bridge. I wonder if Rice would be interested. They seem comfortable playing at whatever level is available, Rice athletics have never really stood out, though I love the MOB.

The Big 12 academic profile has actually improved quite a bit with the recent additions. I think the Mormon and Baptist schools are a bigger hurdle for them than academic performance.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Even if it seems highly unlikely, that would be quite the thing to see play out. SMU being so desperate they are willing to whore themselves out for nearly a decade for zero dollars easily the most amusing and yet believable detail here. Heck I would throw them at least tree fiddy to be in my wacky bicoastal conference...

Well, you have to think long-term to see the big picture. After those 7 years are up, they get to be part of the new media deal with all of the schools not valuable enough to join the SEC, B1G and Big 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, so depressing.  I was an undergrad during the Elway years, and we didn't have that many people then either, and given that the stadium then held over 80K, it wasn't a great look.  But you could take kegs into the stadium and it was pretty damn fun. 

Was about 18 rows up from the trombone player at Cal at the Big Game with The Play.

It's hard not to imagine that if this were happening a decade ago that Stanford would have gotten a closer looks from the Big10.  It's too bad they couldn't have kept the southern cal rivalries front and center, and competitive.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2023 at 3:58 PM, closetohumping said:

Compared to the big 2 the big 12 is that far back

This is something that many fans of blueblood programs have deluded themselves into thinking out of sheer arrogance.  The Big 12 has simply positioned itself to keep a seat at the table as a power conference.  While it won't be top heavy like the SEC and B1G, its floor is higher then both without as much dead weight programs.  Seriously, consider the bottom half of the SEC and B1G and compare that to what will likely be the cyclical nature of the bottom half of the more competitive and intriguing Big 12, which due to such, will have the opportunity to strengthen and elevate its own brand.  

21 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

The Big 12 academic profile has actually improved quite a bit with the recent additions. I think the Mormon and Baptist schools are a bigger hurdle for them than academic performance.

Stanford can't help but turn up their bigoted noses at any university associated with religion. Then there is their elitism that makes swallowing their pride to affiliate with "truck stop" destination schools too much for them.  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

This is something that many fans of blueblood programs have deluded themselves into thinking out of sheer arrogance.  The Big 12 has simply positioned itself to keep a seat at the table as a power conference.  While it won't be top heavy like the SEC and B1G, its floor is higher then both without as much dead weight programs.  Seriously, consider the bottom half of the SEC and B1G and compare that to what will likely be the cyclical nature of the bottom half of the more competitive and intriguing Big 12, which due to such, will have the opportunity to strengthen and elevate its own brand.  

Stanford can't help but turn up their bigoted noses at any university associated with religion. Then there is their elitism that makes swallowing their pride to affiliate with "truck stop" destination schools too much for them.  

 

What the big 12 has going for it is that it has so many mid tier programs that one of them is bound to be on their Cinderella year in their program cycle that they can compete for a top 10 ranking. Then the next year it will be a different team that is just at that point in their development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

Stanford can't help but turn up their bigoted noses at any university associated with religion. Then there is their elitism that makes swallowing their pride to affiliate with "truck stop" destination schools too much for them.  

While I have no doubt this is true for some people I also think it's one of those things that gets overblown on the interwebs. In my 7 years at Stanford and Cal I never met anyone who didn't have great things to say about my undergrad (Baylor). 

Edited by LTbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

I'm pretty sure it's Stanford that isn't interested in the Big XII, not the other way around. The ACC is more appealing to them strictly because of academics. I also think Stanford has a unique appeal beyond its alumni base and NorCal. They are the only Ivy league level academic institution, known nationwide, that takes athletics seriously. Their football and basketball teams have had some high level success despite the academic hurdles. Vandy and NW are the only ones that would be close, but their academic prestige to the a common person is something less than Stanford, and their athletics have largely stunk (Vandy baseball being an obvious exception). The split media contract described above could make some sense, with SMU as a geographical bridge. I wonder if Rice would be interested. They seem comfortable playing at whatever level is available, Rice athletics have never really stood out, though I love the MOB.

Duke, though that kindof ties in with the overall point of "Stanford would prefer the ACC". 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MadisonJumpAround said:

Can't reveal too much, but my job hears intel from a company directly tied to one of the Pac 4 left behind schools. I am just passing along what I hear and doing it here because this is basically the realignment church and seemingly a long way from my own B1G forums. 

I have been told that someone at the Pac12 (likely Luck) is pitching something pretty radical in an effort to save the Pac-12 conference outright. The proposal is a merger of sorts with the ACC, but only in Football. The basic gist I was told was that the Pac 4 would effectively "add" San Diego State and become 5. SMU would join the ACC under the auspices that it would forego any TV revenue for 7 years.  That creates a 20 team football conference. However, it would act like a conference in a conference, which it would be. The 5 west coast teams would form a Western Division. The 15 other teams would divide into 3 divisions of 5 each. This is specifically for scheduling purposes, not necessarily a prelude to conference semi-finals (but you could do that if the NCAA signed off). 

Why would the ACC agree to take on these schools? Money is what I am told. Apparently Apple is pretty hard up to get into the college FB game and Luck or someone still has them interested. The Western 5 would strike their own deal with Apple at something around $15-18 million per team. Apple would control all content in stadiums for those 5 teams. ESPN apparently kinda likes this idea, because they would likely only pay $5 million per for for the additional 6 teams or $30 million total. For such a small investment on ESPN's part they would add a ton of content - all of SMU's games home and away - and all of the Western 5's games in Eastern stadiums. Stanford @ Florida State for example.

But the primary benefit would be that the Western Teams "self finance" their accession to the ACC and that the conference would generate $30 million more that could fund the unequal revenue sharing model that Clemson and FSU seek to restore stability, which ESPN wants above all else and keeps the B1G at bay. 

As far as the other sports, the Pac 12 would add 7 teams from the West Coast Conference, including Gonzaga and Saint Mary's, to create a regional league that cuts down travel expenses and has similar sports interests. Thus, the pac-12 would exist and be a west coast league. The 5 football playing members could create an identity of sorts inside the ACC. The ACC gets to expand without blowing up their own cost model for non-revenue sports (SMU is an easy travel site in Dallas) and preserves their basketball brand. FSU and Clemson get money likely than any B12 school, but still less than B1G and SEC (but enough to compete with them). ESPN gets to settle this whole thing down for a decade or so only paying an additional $30million total (less than half one SEC school's distribution). 

I was told this is a hail mary. For all I know it is full of crap. But seems like a pretty detailed proposal and while on its face, seems crazy, kind of makes some sense. I could see why people might go for it. Again, not a prediction. I am not the Dude of West Virginia. I hear stuff all the time from these guys, sometimes right, sometimes not. This was compelling enough I wanted to share. Take that for what its worth. 

dunno if this is the deal structure (could be?) but the Cal side is feeling pretty optimistic that a move to the ACC is happening with 'Furd and while they wont get a full share, its more than 50% and would eventually scale to full partnership.  Would be for most sports but Cal would also be looking to axe a number of programs, mostly men's in all likelihood.  30 sports currently so 6-ish getting chopped would be logical.  We'll see, negotiations are ongoing but UNC/NCState sound like they are close to flipping their vote.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...