• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

I'm not buying that the Big 12 passed the ACC as the #3 conference.
Click to expand...
Well, it has. At least it's in 3rd at the moment. Still some course to play. At this late(ish) point, what was doesn't matter. What could have been (even 6 months ago) doesn't matter. The only question is "is the ACC better off, right now, taking membership action or doing nothing." Let's take 'em in reverse order.

Doing nothing would be relying on the hope that we can keep all the current schools in line until the GOR expires (we cannot, in my considered opinion) and that by then the landscape will have changed in a way that benefits us. Less money being thrown around, the other conferences have regressed to the mean, and college sports has meandered back to how it used to be. I just don't think that's very likely. And even if it does, we would be competing in that future world with these other conferences who have now and will likely have then a better product (and more of it, via expansion).

Adding some new schools, even though the ones we would prefer have been picked over by the more proactive conferences, means that we think we can better position ourselves for whatever comes by taking affirmative, available (to be contrasted with wishful) action to remain at least in the top tier (the word of the day) of conferences. Will it work? Who knows.

But my overall take is: do nothing, and the ACC almost certainly dies on the vine, probably a lot sooner than the expiration of the GOR. Take action, and it may die anyway. But it might not. In context, I see no benefit to sitting on our hands, and very little downside to taking action. Sure, we should have done it before now, but if we had a bunch of psychic Einsteins running the conference, we probably wouldn't be in this predicament to start with.

The ACC is likely dead. But if it can be saved, it's not by inaction.
 
Pilchard said:
Adding a bunch of afterthought programs and schools that no even knows are in the FBS does not help. That only weakens the ACC's position. It's not adding of schools to just increase membership; it's adding schools that help the conference raise or at least maintain its profile. The SEC added OU and Texas. The Big 10 added USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington. Now the ACC is going to add, JMU and Tulane? That will show them!
Click to expand...
JMU could probably beat the majority of the B10 West
 
Liquid Karma said:
That's where I think this goes...no NCAA, football only.

ND will never have more leverage than they do right now, so they should do something with it.
Click to expand...

I’d take that and returning conferences to where they were 25 years ago for all other sports. But a lot of people would have to give up a lot of power to make that happen. There wouldn’t be fiefdoms attempting to lord over each other. There would be one big league.
 
spritethr said:
JMU could probably beat the majority of the B10 West
Click to expand...
Wish this expansion thing and the schools that survive this round of conference musical chairs was a meritocracy. It's not. A large segment of the Big 10 is terrible, and will continue to be terrible in the revenue sports forever, but apparently, all that matters is the number of alumni and Walmart fans that will pay for subscriptions to the Big 10's Network.

Colorado led the charge from the Pac-12 to the Big 12. Colorado football has had TWO winning seasons since 2006, and one of those was a 4-2 during the COVID year. Colorado has been abjectly terrible in football for years; yet, the Big 12 wanted them and not Stanford or any of the other Pac-12 leftovers, all of whom have massively outperformed the Buffs for years. Since joining the Pac-12 in 2011, Colorado is 27-78 in the Pac-12. It's almost never about who is good and who is not.
 
But that’s easy to explain. Colorado was a former member, geographic fit, and they’ve got Deion which signals a clear break from their football futility.
 
Kent said:
Well, it has. At least it's in 3rd at the moment. Still some course to play. At this late(ish) point, what was doesn't matter. What could have been (even 6 months ago) doesn't matter. The only question is "is the ACC better off, right now, taking membership action or doing nothing." Let's take 'em in reverse order.

Doing nothing would be relying on the hope that we can keep all the current schools in line until the GOR expires (we cannot, in my considered opinion) and that by then the landscape will have changed in a way that benefits us. Less money being thrown around, the other conferences have regressed to the mean, and college sports has meandered back to how it used to be. I just don't think that's very likely. And even if it does, we would be competing in that future world with these other conferences who have now and will likely have then a better product (and more of it, via expansion).

Adding some new schools, even though the ones we would prefer have been picked over by the more proactive conferences, means that we think we can better position ourselves for whatever comes by taking affirmative, available (to be contrasted with wishful) action to remain at least in the top tier (the word of the day) of conferences. Will it work? Who knows.

But my overall take is: do nothing, and the ACC almost certainly dies on the vine, probably a lot sooner than the expiration of the GOR. Take action, and it may die anyway. But it might not. In context, I see no benefit to sitting on our hands, and very little downside to taking action. Sure, we should have done it before now, but if we had a bunch of psychic Einsteins running the conference, we probably wouldn't be in this predicament to start with.

The ACC is likely dead. But if it can be saved, it's not by inaction.
Click to expand...
I hear and agree with most of your points except one. By money and current life expectancy the ACC is still in better shape than the Big 12.
 
DeacOnCapeCod said:
at times I’m not sure what value is added by teams in certain markets. The acc got a footprint in Boston when BC was added but the city doesn’t really care about sports and we probably didn’t get a lot of eyeballs on the games. With all of the. Transplanted Ohioans in the south, I think that would be a draw for tOSU fans for Clemson and FSU.
Click to expand...
Boston cares a ton about sports. They’re sports crazy. Just not college sports.
 
DeacWatcher said:
Was sent this last night by a buddy of mine. Interesting perspective.

www.on3.com

Dying on the ACC vine: what will Big Ten, SEC do about FSU, Clemson, and Miami?

A source with intimate knowledge of the realignment landscape in college athletics has sent us information on what could happen in the future.
www.on3.com www.on3.com
Click to expand...
This is somewhat interesting but also clearly written with some Gamecock/SEC homerism.

“Plus, most people believe Clemson is in North Carolina (it’s not) and Dabo Swinney’s appeal nationally is greatly diminished by his antics on and off the field the past few seasons.” Lolol.
 
(See attachment for academic rankings of schools in each P5 conference and poachable teams. Never mind. I cant post a photo of my spreadsheet no matter how small I make the image...)

********

I don't think anything is going to happen in the immediate term with FSU, Clemson or Miami, or - much worse - UNC and UVA. The "Football End Game" may arrive before the ACC hemorrhages schools. Wake may get screwed, but our best and only option is that the ACC is intact when the End Game Times come.

The key thing for me is that the ACC needs to continue to exist and be relevant in football and basketball.

I would rather be in a conference with the 8 programs pre FSU (plus VT), but I can't make that happen.

I would rather not add more teams. Every additional team dilutes our rivalry schedule. Unless we get to a tipping point with division or pods.

We - Wake Forest - need to be in a conference that will exist after big programs leave. Also, we don't want to invite teams that we wouldn't want to be in a conference in if all "attractive to other conference teams" leave.

********

I could see being glad to be in a conference with Stanford and Cal, and I can see them later leaving with other "attractive programs."

I do not want to be left in a conference with Oregon State (USNWR rank 151) and Wazzou (212) after UNC Clemson et al left. So no.

(By the way, SDSU is ranked 151. I bet that would go up if they were in the ACC with Stanford and Cal.)

I don't think 12 ACC schools are going to vote for more than Stanford and Cal, if anyone.

I think this can be marketed, truly, as not desperation but doing Stanford and Cal a solid and doing something interesting and presumably more money to go around.

(I would not give them by-laws votes, I don't want them creating a majority that wouldn't otherwise exist. Or the threshold to pass a resolution could be raised by two if they count.)

********

SMU - if the money works and UNC and UVA vote for them and enough if the league vote for them, sure. One of our best "league blows up" options is like minded schools.

SMU's USNWR rank is 62. Tulane is larger with a bigger endowment (ranks 44). Rice is slightly smaller with a way bigger endowment (ranks 15).

I think SMU would join the Big 12 if they were invited. Even though we are better than the Big 12. SMU adds value to our contract but not theirs. I think they'd still be there after our big guys leave, if we are desperate. So no. But they are part of my Magnolia League backup plan.

I'd almost rather pick Tulane or Rice. But I think they'll still be there too. South Florida is also top 100 and

Navy is another down the road option. It is very highly ranked academically and draws good viewership. The others above don't, but SMU or Rice and Tulane bring carriage money.

*******

There's nobody in the Big 12 I would want to be in a conference with if our good teams leave, other than WVU or Cincy.

I wish Louisville would leave, but they might keep us attractive and interesting if we need WVU or UC.

I would be interested in TCU (rank 89) if we are interested in SMU.

********

I would not add UConn or UMass. I hate UConn. I don't want any more NE schools unless forced. If we lose the heart of the ACC teams, we may not have much choice. They are both US News ranked in the mid 60s. So, around VT/Syr/Pitt.

I don't want more mouths eating our GOR money if we get left behind. Our best option may be for relevant schools with high academic standards that are not invited to play with the big boys, and one reason is we don't want to play all the way to the rules they are.

********

Worst case, we end up with a pot of money and then invite schools like William and Mary (ranked 41st) and Richmond or App State or whatever.

But I'd rather be in a national or quasi national prestige league.

********

I think we should do nothing EXCEPT that I think we should do what cements UNC and UVA, especially UNC, to the league, and then Clemson. So whatever additions UNC and UVA want, I want.

If schools like that get more money, their buyouts should increase proportionately. (Three years times their new revenue share. Thirteen years still.)

My list (assuming they are desired by UNC and cement them deeper):
1) Stanford - as Independent or nember
2) Cal - ditto, assuming Stanford would need them.
We have right but not obligation to kick one out if other leaves
3) WVU - this is the only team I would add in a minute if the money worked and UNC et al agreed
4) SMU (for whatever reason they are being talked to)
5) SDSU, if accretive to money and can be kicked out if Stanford leaves

WVU is the only school I would invite ranked below 100 (they rank 234, vs Louisville's 182 - the lowest ranked ACC school otherwise is Clemson at 77. That ties the highest ranked Big 12 team - Baylor).

********

Everyone else I would wait.

Everything keys on UNC staying and doing what cements UNC further to the ACC. I don't think they want to leave, because of the rivalries. I think beyond that, the prestige of the league is important, and that's why I think Stanford and Cal are good adds if they think so. (Stanford and Cal will leave if UNC and UVA do. So we won't be stuck with them, and I assume their buyout requirements will not be stiff. I think we are doing something mutually convenient. "Collegial.")

*******

If ACC blows up, then we either go:
a) national prestige school league (perhaps some hope of involvement in Football End Game): high G5;

5) SMU
6) Tulane
7) Rice
8) Navy

b) East Coast prestige school league: mid G5;

9) UConn, maybe merge with Big East with football playing members and not

c) if we part ways with BC etc, then we split the buyout money (hopefully we get to keep the ACC name) and maybe use it to cultivate a regional prestige school league (help raise programs at William & Mary, Richmond, etc): low G5;

d) or do just local FBS league with our pit of money (App St, ECU, etc): low G5. I think we should leverage the ACC name.

Long before we are floundering to join in with far flung schools with our best programs gone, I would hope they would lift football out of the conference setups for all other sports, so that we have a chance to go back to our more organic origins - which may be possible when the money issues is smaller for the other sports and breaking up is inexpensive relative to the value of rivalries and proximity.
CamLemons said:
Academics for Memphis hold them back from a lot (remember, these are presidents that have to vote) They're just trying to position themselves to hopefully be picked up. I also don't think they have the money to exit as well as take pennies on the dollar like SMU who essentially going for free.

USF doesn't add anything on top of what people already have. You're not looking to add a Tampa school when you already have two people in Florida. B12 isn't really chomping at the bit to add another Florida school after adding UCF. Unless you're taking schools with massive brands. Maybe extremely down the road but right now nah.
Click to expand...
Memphis ranks 263rd in the USNWR rankings. Louisville ranks 182. Our next lowest is Clemson at 77.

(The Big 12's highest ranked school is Baylor at 77, FWIW.)

The only school I would add below 100 is WVU (234). One, I assume if we added them it was because UNC and UVA wanted them. And two, if we get left behind by all the big schools, I don't mind if WVU is left in our conference and I do mind if Memphis is! (WVU would probably get a similar offer to stay P3.)
 
Last edited:
DemonDeke said:
(See attachment for academic rankings of schools in each P5 conference and poachable teams)


The key thing for me is that the ACC needs to continue to exist and be relevant in football and basketball.

I would rather be in a conference with the 8 programs pre FSU (plus VT), but I can't make that happen.

I would rather not add more teams. Every additional team dilutes our rivalry schedule. Unless we get to a tipping point with division or pods.

We - Wake Forest - need to be in a conference that will exist after big programs leave. Also, we don't want to invite teams that we wouldn't want to be in a conference in if all "attractive to other conference teams" leave.

********

I could see being glad to be in a conference with Stanford and Cal, and I can see them leaving with other "attractive programs."

I do not want to be left in a conference with Oregon State (USNWR rank 151) and Wazzou (212) after UNC Clemson et al left. So no.

(By the way, SDSU is ranked 151. I bet that would go up if they were in the ACC with Stanford and Cal.)

********

I don't think 12 schools are going to vote for more than Stanford and Cal, if anyone.

********

SMU - if the money works and UNC and UVA vote for them and enough if the league vote for them, sure. One of our best "league blows up" options is like minded schools.

SMU's USNWR rank is 62. Tulane is larger with a bigger endowment (ranks 44). Rice is slightly smaller with a way bigger endowment (ranks 15).

I think SMU would join the Big 12 if they were invited. Even though we are better than the Big 12. SMU adds value to our contract but not theirs. I think they'd still be there after our big guys leave, if we are desperate. So no. But they are part of my Magnolia League backup plan.

I'd almost rather pick Tulane or Rice. But I think they'll still be there too. South Florida is also top 100 and

Navy is another down the road option. It is very highly ranked academically and draws good viewership. The others above don't, but SMU or Rice and Tulane bring carriage money.

*******

There's nobody in the Big 12 I would want to be in a conference with if our good teams leave, other than WVU or Cincy.

I wish Louisville would leave, but they might keep us attractive and interesting if we need WVU or UC.

I would be interested in TCU (rank 89) if we are interested in SMU.

********

I would not add UConn or UMass. I hate UConn. I don't want any more NE schools unless forced. If we lose the heart of the ACC teams, we may not have much choice. They are both US News ranked in the mid 60s. So, around VT/Syr/Pitt.

I don't want more mouths eating our GOR money if we get left behind. Our best option may be for relevant schools with high academic standards that are not invited to play with the big boys, and one reason is we don't want to play all the way to the rules they are.

********

Worst case, we end up with a pot of money and then invite schools like William and Mary (ranked 41st) and Richmond or App State or whatever.

But I'd rather be in a national or quasi national prestige league.

********

I think we should do nothing EXCEPT that I think we should do what cements UNC and UVA, especially UNC, to the league, and then Clemson. So whatever additions UNC and UVA want, I want.

If schools like that get more money, their buyouts should increase proportionately. (Three years times their new revenue share. Thirteen years still.)

My list (assuming they are desired by UNC and cement them deeper):
1) Stanford - as Independent or nember
2) Cal - ditto, assuming Stanford would need them.
We have right but not obligation to kick one out if other leaves
3) WVU - this is the only team I would add in a minute if the money worked and UNC et al agreed
4) SMU (for whatever reason they are being talked to)
5) SDSU, if accretive to money and can be kicked out if Stanford leaves

WVU is the only school I would invite ranked below 100 (they rank 234, vs Louisville's 182 - the lowest ranked ACC school otherwise is Clemson at 77. That ties the highest ranked Big 12 team - Baylor).

********

Everyone else I would wait.

Everything keys on UNC staying and doing what cements UNC further to the ACC. I don't think they want to leave, because of the rivalries. I think beyond that, the prestige of the league is important, and that's why I think Stanford and Cal are good adds if they think so. (Stanford and Cal will leave if UNC and UVA do. So we won't be stuck with them, and I assume their buyout requirements will not be stiff. I think we are doing something mutually convenient. "Collegial.")

*******

If ACC blows up, then we either go:
a) national prestige school league (perhaps some hope of involvement in Football End Game): high G5;

5) SMU
6) Tulane
7) Rice
8) Navy

b) East Coast prestige school league: mid G5;

9) UConn, maybe merge with Big East with football playing members and not

c) if we part ways with BC etc, then we split the buyout money (hopefully we get to keep the ACC name) and maybe use it to cultivate a regional prestige school league (help raise programs at William & Mary, Richmond, etc): low G5;

d) or do just local FBS league with our pit of money (App St, ECU, etc): low G5. I think we should leverage the ACC name.

Long before we are floundering to join in with far flung schools with our best programs gone, I would hope they would lift football out of the conference setups for all other sports, so that we have a chance to go back to our more organic origins - which may be possible when the money issues is smaller for the other sports and breaking up is inexpensive relative to the value of rivalries and proximity.

Memphis ranks 263rd in the USNWR rankings. Louisville ranks 182. Our next lowest is Clemson at 77.

(The Big 12's highest ranked school is Baylor at 77, FWIW.)

The only school I would add below 100 is WVU (234). One, I assume if we added them it was because UNC and UVA wanted them. And two, if we get left behind by all the big schools, I don't mind if WVU is left in our conference and I do mind if Memphis is! (WVU would probably get a similar offer to stay P3.)
Click to expand...
So the problem here is that it’s been made fairly clear through media reports that UNC is voting a hard “no” to adding Cal and Stanford. So who knows what is going on there.
 
WakeFanAdam said:
That’s a pretty sweet looking stadium
Click to expand...
Pilchard said:
FWIW, to the extent being good in football matters in the expansion game (and not sure it really does), Oregon State has a chance to be sneaky good this year. As in a Pac-12 darkhorse. OSU coach Jonathan Smith has built a program on an unstoppable power running game, and they added DJ who could be a beast in that system. Pac 12 defenses outside of Utah and maybe Washington are helpless against that attack. The Beavers also slaughter people at home (IIRC, they currently have the longest home ATS streak), and their stadium renovation was just completed. Got to believe this team will be motivated to inflict pain after being cast aside by the conference. Look out for the Beavers. They are coming.

resize


damienmartinez_2022_usatoday.jpg
Click to expand...
The Beavers stadium capacity is 35k. Basically the same as ours but it looks so much sweeter. Why? Because they recently did a renovation where they made nearly all seats in the stadium chairbacks (except for student section if I recall). So same capacity as WF, but much lower density, which allows for the 2nd deck and looks so much bigger than it is.

I think we need to do the exact same thing. And I may or may not have emailed John Currie telling him exactly this.
 
DemonDeke said:
(See attachment for academic rankings of schools in each P5 conference and poachable teams. Never mind. I cant post a photo of my spreadsheet no matter how small I make the image...)

********

I don't think anything is going to happen in the immediate term with FSU, Clemson or Miami, or - much worse - UNC and UVA. The "Football End Game" may arrive before the ACC hemorrhages schools. Wake may get screwed, but our best and only option is that the ACC is intact when the End Game Times come.

The key thing for me is that the ACC needs to continue to exist and be relevant in football and basketball.

I would rather be in a conference with the 8 programs pre FSU (plus VT), but I can't make that happen.

I would rather not add more teams. Every additional team dilutes our rivalry schedule. Unless we get to a tipping point with division or pods.

We - Wake Forest - need to be in a conference that will exist after big programs leave. Also, we don't want to invite teams that we wouldn't want to be in a conference in if all "attractive to other conference teams" leave.

********

I could see being glad to be in a conference with Stanford and Cal, and I can see them later leaving with other "attractive programs."

I do not want to be left in a conference with Oregon State (USNWR rank 151) and Wazzou (212) after UNC Clemson et al left. So no.

(By the way, SDSU is ranked 151. I bet that would go up if they were in the ACC with Stanford and Cal.)

I don't think 12 ACC schools are going to vote for more than Stanford and Cal, if anyone.

I think this can be marketed, truly, as not desperation but doing Stanford and Cal a solid and doing something interesting and presumably more money to go around.

(I would not give them by-laws votes, I don't want them creating a majority that wouldn't otherwise exist. Or the threshold to pass a resolution could be raised by two if they count.)

********

SMU - if the money works and UNC and UVA vote for them and enough if the league vote for them, sure. One of our best "league blows up" options is like minded schools.

SMU's USNWR rank is 62. Tulane is larger with a bigger endowment (ranks 44). Rice is slightly smaller with a way bigger endowment (ranks 15).

I think SMU would join the Big 12 if they were invited. Even though we are better than the Big 12. SMU adds value to our contract but not theirs. I think they'd still be there after our big guys leave, if we are desperate. So no. But they are part of my Magnolia League backup plan.

I'd almost rather pick Tulane or Rice. But I think they'll still be there too. South Florida is also top 100 and

Navy is another down the road option. It is very highly ranked academically and draws good viewership. The others above don't, but SMU or Rice and Tulane bring carriage money.

*******

There's nobody in the Big 12 I would want to be in a conference with if our good teams leave, other than WVU or Cincy.

I wish Louisville would leave, but they might keep us attractive and interesting if we need WVU or UC.

I would be interested in TCU (rank 89) if we are interested in SMU.

********

I would not add UConn or UMass. I hate UConn. I don't want any more NE schools unless forced. If we lose the heart of the ACC teams, we may not have much choice. They are both US News ranked in the mid 60s. So, around VT/Syr/Pitt.

I don't want more mouths eating our GOR money if we get left behind. Our best option may be for relevant schools with high academic standards that are not invited to play with the big boys, and one reason is we don't want to play all the way to the rules they are.

********

Worst case, we end up with a pot of money and then invite schools like William and Mary (ranked 41st) and Richmond or App State or whatever.

But I'd rather be in a national or quasi national prestige league.

********

I think we should do nothing EXCEPT that I think we should do what cements UNC and UVA, especially UNC, to the league, and then Clemson. So whatever additions UNC and UVA want, I want.

If schools like that get more money, their buyouts should increase proportionately. (Three years times their new revenue share. Thirteen years still.)

My list (assuming they are desired by UNC and cement them deeper):
1) Stanford - as Independent or nember
2) Cal - ditto, assuming Stanford would need them.
We have right but not obligation to kick one out if other leaves
3) WVU - this is the only team I would add in a minute if the money worked and UNC et al agreed
4) SMU (for whatever reason they are being talked to)
5) SDSU, if accretive to money and can be kicked out if Stanford leaves

WVU is the only school I would invite ranked below 100 (they rank 234, vs Louisville's 182 - the lowest ranked ACC school otherwise is Clemson at 77. That ties the highest ranked Big 12 team - Baylor).

********

Everyone else I would wait.

Everything keys on UNC staying and doing what cements UNC further to the ACC. I don't think they want to leave, because of the rivalries. I think beyond that, the prestige of the league is important, and that's why I think Stanford and Cal are good adds if they think so. (Stanford and Cal will leave if UNC and UVA do. So we won't be stuck with them, and I assume their buyout requirements will not be stiff. I think we are doing something mutually convenient. "Collegial.")

*******

If ACC blows up, then we either go:
a) national prestige school league (perhaps some hope of involvement in Football End Game): high G5;

5) SMU
6) Tulane
7) Rice
8) Navy

b) East Coast prestige school league: mid G5;

9) UConn, maybe merge with Big East with football playing members and not

c) if we part ways with BC etc, then we split the buyout money (hopefully we get to keep the ACC name) and maybe use it to cultivate a regional prestige school league (help raise programs at William & Mary, Richmond, etc): low G5;

d) or do just local FBS league with our pit of money (App St, ECU, etc): low G5. I think we should leverage the ACC name.

Long before we are floundering to join in with far flung schools with our best programs gone, I would hope they would lift football out of the conference setups for all other sports, so that we have a chance to go back to our more organic origins - which may be possible when the money issues is smaller for the other sports and breaking up is inexpensive relative to the value of rivalries and proximity.

Memphis ranks 263rd in the USNWR rankings. Louisville ranks 182. Our next lowest is Clemson at 77.

(The Big 12's highest ranked school is Baylor at 77, FWIW.)

The only school I would add below 100 is WVU (234). One, I assume if we added them it was because UNC and UVA wanted them. And two, if we get left behind by all the big schools, I don't mind if WVU is left in our conference and I do mind if Memphis is! (WVU would probably get a similar offer to stay P3.)
Click to expand...
I ain’t reading all that
I’m happy for u tho
Or sorry that happened
 
Catching up here on approximately the past 25 pages on this thread. I’d like the last 30 minutes of my life back - all I took away from everything posted over the past couple of days is 1) people still seem to live in the fantasyland that ND will join the ACC and 2) some stupid argument about law school rankings. Wake me up when we actually know something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top