Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away

The Tower

By The Tower
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Sandbagging Steve,

How many teams will be left when the dust settles in a few years? I think there's a way for all the teams to still have some involvement. I will explain that at the end of this list. Here's my list of the top 32 programs and a list if it goes to 48. There's some debate if it goes to 48, but not much debate if it stops at 32. I guess one could debate Arizona State, but that's about it. The top 32 at least come close to carrying their own weight. Everyone below that line is losing money for t

This is great content for free.

Recommended by immamac

  • Hook 'Em

6 reactions

Go to this post
The Original Greaser Bob

The Original Greaser Bob 2,824

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bullet said:

They looked down on the Big 12 schools.

They made some BIG errors getting themselves in this situation. You have no idea what last minute moves they may have made, and whether those included them going to the Big12 with hat in hand.

I'm fine with a general "Stanford fucked itself" statement.  We will probably learn more about the specifics in the coming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 36.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bullet

    1507

  • Hurtlocker

    1322

  • Al_4_ISU

    1079

  • BurntOrange&White

    976

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos
Hiphopopotamos
MAUFRAIS
MAUFRAIS

Aggy should abstain so the vote is 13-0 and then we can then brand it on their dog.

jofus
jofus

Posted Images

Longboard Horn

Longboard Horn 40,298

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

So how did we get from the UNC Board saying they didn't want to expand to then voting to expand in a matter of hours?

Did someone else flip their vote or did UNC/NCState flip their vote against the wishes of the board?

Maybe UNC was the "aggy" of the ACC voting wise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ButtFumble

ButtFumble 5,168

Posted
Posted (edited)

one thing for SMU the AAC TV deal averages $7 million and goes for another 10 years at least because it was extended 2 years when they added 6 schools after Cincy, UCF and UH left

so this past year a TOTAL distribution for SMU was about $7 million because the TV money is currently below the $7 million average, but there are NCAA credits and some bowl money and small amounts of football playoff money and UConn exit fees as well as exit fees from the Big 12 members and that $7 million distribution would slowly climb about $500,000 a year for the next 10 years

"reporters" are saying that Stanford, Cal, AND SMU all get a cut of football playoff money so $90 million / 18 = $5 million right there and they all get a cut of bowl money and NCAA tournament money.....so if that is true SMU may well break even on this deal or even be slightly ahead depending on how football playoff money grows and is distributed

Stanford and Cal are both taking at least a $20 million per year haircut over what they were earning if you look at the PAC 12 paying out about $35 million currently and now Stanford and Cal taking $8 million to start plus that other $7 or $8 million like SMU is said to be getting for a total of $15 to $16 million

Edited by ButtFumble
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ztejas

ztejas 43,418

Posted
Posted
Just now, ButtFumble said:

one thing for SMU the AAC TV deal averages 7 million and goes for another 10 years at least because it was extended 2 years when they added 6 schools after Cincy, UCF and UH left

so this past year a TOTAL distribution for SMU was about $7 million and that would slowly climb about $500,000 a year for the next 10 years

"reporters" are saying that Stanford, Cal, AND SMU all get a cut of football playoff money so $90 million / 18 = $5 million right there and they all get a cut of bowl money and NCAA tournament money.....so if that is true SMU may well break even on this deal or even be slightly ahead depending on how football playoff money grows and is distributed

Stanford and Cal are both taking at least a $20 million per year haircut over what they were earning if you look at the PAC 12 paying out about $35 million currently and now Stanford and Cal taking $8 million to start plus that other $7 or $8 million like SMU is said to be getting for a total of $15 to $16 million

SMU probably makes up some money in merch sales and event revenue as well. 

Not that it matters. The added donor money will dwarf whatever was coming in combined per annum the last 10 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ButtFumble

ButtFumble 5,168

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

SMU probably makes up some money in merch sales and event revenue as well. 

Not that it matters. The added donor money will dwarf whatever was coming in combined per annum the last 10 years. 

yea missing out on a $7 growing to $11 or $12 million distribution in the AAC over the next 10+ years is not going to be hard for SMU to make up for.......10,000 more fans a game at $100 X 6 games a year is $6 million plus they will be pouring the booze and the donors will step up that is the simple part for them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Left Coast

Left Coast 863

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

one thing for SMU the AAC TV deal averages $7 million and goes for another 10 years at least because it was extended 2 years when they added 6 schools after Cincy, UCF and UH left

so this past year a TOTAL distribution for SMU was about $7 million because the TV money is currently below the $7 million average, but there are NCAA credits and some bowl money and small amounts of football playoff money and UConn exit fees as well as exit fees from the Big 12 members and that $7 million distribution would slowly climb about $500,000 a year for the next 10 years

"reporters" are saying that Stanford, Cal, AND SMU all get a cut of football playoff money so $90 million / 18 = $5 million right there and they all get a cut of bowl money and NCAA tournament money.....so if that is true SMU may well break even on this deal or even be slightly ahead depending on how football playoff money grows and is distributed

Stanford and Cal are both taking at least a $20 million per year haircut over what they were earning if you look at the PAC 12 paying out about $35 million currently and now Stanford and Cal taking $8 million to start plus that other $7 or $8 million like SMU is said to be getting for a total of $15 to $16 million

Don’t forget that Cal, the welfare queen, also gets a cut from UCLA’s B1G money of anywhere between $2m-$10m per year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5,457

Posted
Posted (edited)

Two schools that really benefited from NIL- UT and SMU. UT, because, finally, the school could get behind paying players. SNY, because, although they have always been fine with paying players, they had been shamed into not doing so. 
 
Now, SMU is in the ACC, their games are on a major network, and they have more NIL budgeted than any B12 teams (after 2023). I wonder how the TCU-UH games will do, ratings wise, vs SMU-Clemson. Oh, and now ACC schools have a recruiting inroad to Texas (Miami and Clemson are already recruiting Texas). 
 
(and even though it’s BS, SMU claims NCs from ‘81 and ‘82)
 
I see now why TCU dropped their series with them. 

Edited by statsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTbear

LTbear 4,168

Posted
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, bullet said:

I figured this would happen.  But if it dragged on another 2-3 weeks common sense would set in.  The UNC board of trustees and a Raleigh paper had it right.  This is minimal extra revenue--and maybe negative when the contract gets renewed.  Its just not worth it.  Certainly not the Cal/Stanford part.

Final vote was 12-3.  NCSU flipped.  The way Clemson was talking I though they might flip also.

It also made no sense from the Cal/Stanford viewpoint.  They really should have been begging the Big 12 and pointing out to ESPN that they would have to pay for 100%, not just 67% in the Big 12, if they went to the ACC.

Its official now.  Realignment has copied Fonzi.

I don't disagree on anything you've said here. As a Cal fan, I'm glad to see them get a home - no matter how crazy or perhaps temporary, fully acknowledging the ACC could crumble in the next 5 years. But going to the ACC with Stanford is better than being left to the MWC. 

I personally would have been happy seeing Cal and Stanford join the 4C schools in the Big XII, but I don't think that arrangement had interest from either side. Cal fans were talking about it some, but I don't know to what degree Cal admin entertained it. I've seen no Big XII fans that would have been in favor. 

I'm just glad this is done. Now I can spend the weekend drunk and enjoying the games instead of refreshing webpages looking for updates. 

Edited by LTbear
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frank Drebin

Frank Drebin 5,663

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, statsman said:

Two schools that really benefited from NIL- UT and SMU. UT, because, finally, the school could get behind paying players. SNY, because, although they have always been fine with paying players, they had been shamed into not doing so. 
 
Now, SMU is in the ACC, their games are on a major network, and they have more NIL budgeted than any B12 teams (after 2023). I wonder how the TCU-UH games will do, ratings wise, vs SMU-Clemson. Oh, and now ACC schools have a recruiting inroad to Texas (Miami and Clemson are already recruiting Texas). 
 
I see now why TCU dropped their series with them. 

It's an 18-team conference.  How often do you expect SMU to play Clemson in football?  I bet it's not more than a handful of times before Clemson and FSU bounce.

Edited by Frank Drebin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ButtFumble

ButtFumble 5,168

Posted
Posted
Just now, Left Coast said:

Don’t forget that Cal, the welfare queen, also gets a cut from UCLA’s B1G money of anywhere between $2m-$10m per year.

 

that is correct I did forget that.....I would bet that "word on the street" is that is going to be $10 million now 🤣

UCLA is getting royally fucked in that deal

I believe it will be a reverse merger of the PAC and MWC to retain ownership of The Rose Bowl Game (ASU president is on record stating it is half owned by the PAC and Big 10) and The Tournament of Roses does kick money each year to the PAC and Big 10....in addition the two votes "autonomy" for NCAA business for the PAC remain in place there is not a mechanism to reverse that or take it away....and as of now I do not know if there is a way to remove them from getting a larger "P5" share of the football playoff money because that is centered around the pledging of teams to the playoffs vs. holding them to The Rose Bowl contract just like the Big 10, the Big 12 with The Cotton Bowl, and the SEC SEC SEC with the Sugar Bowl

plus forfeited NCAA credits are pretty meaningful and there are some "conference reserves" of about $45 million that possibly remain with the conference

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ztejas

ztejas 43,418

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, mdmost said:

This makes sense for cutting down on some travel for Olympics.

 

That makes sense. You can play soccer at SMU, too, although not sure Stanford wants to forfeit playing at home.

It would be funny if the long-con was forfeiting TV revenue but charging the conference to use facilities. 

Edited by ztejas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26,440

Posted
Posted
Just now, Evil Bill Obrien said:

 

Truly astounding how college football went from neat, regionally aligned conferences to TV networks telling them to fuck geography here's a boat load of cash to have multiple cross country conferences...

 

I detest almost everything about College Football these days other than the college football.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ButtFumble

ButtFumble 5,168

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I don't disagree on anything you've said here. As a Cal fan, I'm glad to see them get a home - no matter how crazy or perhaps temporary, fully acknowledging the ACC could crumble in the next 5 years. But going to the ACC with Stanford is better than being left to the MWC. 

I personally would have been happy seeing Cal and Stanford join the 4C schools in the Big XII, but I don't think that arrangement had interest from either side. Cal fans were talking about it some, but I don't know to what degree Cal admin entertained it. I've seen no Big XII fans that would have been in favor. 

I'm just glad this is done. Now I can spend the weekend drunk and enjoying the games instead of refreshing webpages looking for updates. 

I personally thought that a rebuilt PAC with:

SMU, SDSU, Rice, Tulane, Army, Navy, Air Force, and CSU was their best option

that is a really strong set of academics there, you do have Navy and Army across the country, but that is more their issue than anyone in the PAC 4, that is a national following with San Diego being appealing for Navy, you get all 3 Academies together, and you have some "markets" even if the teams in them are not really delivering them

I think looking at a 5 or 6 year contract to wait out further developments would have made that work for the PAC 4.....as of now I am not confident that the ACC will fall apart after all Big Bad Texas did not break the Big 12 GOR along with OU so who the fuck thinks that FSU and Clemson will get it done with a very similar GOR

even then there are still exit fees in place for the ACC members that go beyond the GOR (the Big 12 goes to 2111) so if something breaks the GOR somehow and Stanford and Cal want to jump.....well they are still on the hook for exit fees after taking pretty much shit money in the ACC

in addition no matter what people thought the Big 10 was pretty clearly not at all interested and I do not think the Big 12 wanted the headaches of Cal and Stanford (plus the other 4 that had blindly followed Stanford to a PAC collapse) and I do not think Stanford and Cal wanted it either

so you have Stanford and Cal hoping that FSU and Clemson can do what Texas and OU could not and then still having to pay a large exit fee to the ACC and that is on the hopes that their athletics do not completely fall apart in the ACC and that the Big 10 or someone else that never wanted them now or that they did not want will suddenly look good to them or invite them

seems like a terrible risk and a really poorly thought out plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Hot Dog Buffet

The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, mdmost said:

It makes sense from a "we're hanging with other smart schools" standpoint versus the Big 12 where it's what, Kansas, Arizona, and Utah?

 

10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Us, kinda.

Colorado, ASU, and Cincinnati are also AAU schools.

Edited by The Hot Dog Buffet
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTbear

LTbear 4,168

Posted
Posted
Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

So 2031 we should expect to see UNC, Clemson, FSU announce their intent to leave the conference? 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's earlier than that.

1 minute ago, Saint Austin said:

On a less-important note, who does the AAC add to backfill SMU? UConn for football-only? Every other option is pretty vomit-inducing.

Do they need to? They've got several footholds in Texas, no one else is really worth it, they have plenty of members...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 39,930

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I wouldn't be surprised if it's earlier than that.

Do they need to? They've got several footholds in Texas, no one else is really worth it, they have plenty of members...

I wonder if there are any reduction clauses in ACC/GOR buyout at a target date?

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21,801

Posted
Posted

By 2030 I would hope the networks and schools would get together and ask "what are we even doing anymore?" The whole system needs to be realigned geographically with the ability for the bluebloods to make money based on tv appearances with a high baseline for everyone else involved. This whole thing has just gotten ridiculous.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...