• 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

But aren’t tv monies and academic grant monies going into entirely different coffers?
 
Keep in mind, it's the university presidents that vote on these matters. At present it's all about money. At some point in the future the role of education could return as a priority.
Nothing about the current political or social status of the country leads me to believe this will be true any time soon in our extreme capitalist model
 
But aren’t tv monies and academic grant monies going into entirely different coffers?
Yep. One of those coffers actually makes money. The other does not. Hint: the one that makes money is not the one with helmets, footballs, and basketballs and that will probably continue for most even with gigantic tv deals. So what the presidents care about is the much bigger and more important coffer.
 
Most surprising thing about all of this is discovering that SMU doesn't have a baseball program.

I get that they're not a huge school but for a Texas school not to have baseball seems wild to me.
Same for a school like Miami not having a golf program
 
A ton of schools in the South (not sure if Miami qualifies as South) don’t have soccer programs. The few that do only have women’s programs to offset football scholarships for men. IIRC, of the soon to be 16 SEC schools, only S.Carolina and KY field men’s soccer programs.
 
Yep. One of those coffers actually makes money. The other does not. Hint: the one that makes money is not the one with helmets, footballs, and basketballs and that will probably continue for most even with gigantic tv deals. So what the presidents care about is the much bigger and more important coffer.

So my point was that some were saying you make up for the lack of tv revenue by being a stronger academic conference and leading the way in attracting grant money.

But there are two separate pots whose funds are not comingled. Thus no ADs will care about more academic grants because it doesn’t help them hold new training facilities. So I don’t grasp why that argument is being forwarded.
 
Miami also doesn’t have men’s soccer which is crazy to me.
And in the 15 school ACC, Pitt & Syracuse also do not have men’s golf. For a sport that only allows 4.5 schollies, seems like a cheaper one to have.
 
Bobby Jones was the ACC’s best golfer.

Raymond Floyd is closer to Arnie than Arnie was to Jones.

Colin Morikowa (Cal) may end up on the Floyd/Arnie tier (several majors but way fewer than 10)
Nope Bobby Jones might have been but ended his career way too early. Raymond close to Arnie, with all due respect the gap in skill, brand recognition, admiration and awareness isn’t even worth a conversation….Arnie was and will always be the king. I also know you believe this and just stirring the pot.

You‘re a golfer and a Wake guy…have you lost your mind
 
Nope Bobby Jones might have been but ended his career way too early. Raymond close to Arnie, with all due respect the gap in skill, brand recognition, admiration and awareness isn’t even worth a conversation….Arnie was and will always be the king. I also know you believe this and just stirring the pot.

You‘re a golfer and a Wake guy…have you lost your mind
Duke guy
 
So my point was that some were saying you make up for the lack of tv revenue by being a stronger academic conference and leading the way in attracting grant money.

But there are two separate pots whose funds are not comingled. Thus no ADs will care about more academic grants because it doesn’t help them hold new training facilities. So I don’t grasp why that argument is being forwarded.
The AD’s are not making these decisions.
 

Enter three incredibly unlikely saviors: Cal, Stanford and SMU.

One silver lining in that aforementioned ESPN deal is that the network must pay a pro-rata share for any new members. Per the ACC’s 2021-22 tax return, the league made $443 million in TV revenue, the equivalent of $29.5 million per school, a number expected to rise modestly each year. Let’s say it’s $31 million by 2024-25. That’s an extra $93 million in the bank.

If Stanford and Cal are willing to initially take 30 percent and SMU zero, that would leave a pool of $74 million in found money to distribute to the current schools, not even including a likely gain in ACC Network subscriber fees in San Francisco and Dallas.

If split equally among all 14 full members, that number barely moves the needle, especially given the schools will need to turn around and spend some of it on charter flights to the Bay Area. But the model being dangled in front of the four holdouts would disperse that money based on performance, per The Athletic’s Nicole Auerbach, whether that’s on the field, in the Nielsen ratings or both. That’s on top of the conference previously announcing it will use a performance-based distribution model for the influx of College Football Playoff money expected to come its way in the 12-team format.




So, all Florida State has to do is win at the same stratospheric level as its sense of self-importance, and there might be enough new money to shut its mouth for the time being. Plus keep Clemson happy as well.

It’s an overly convoluted solution to a self-inflicted crisis. But just like Cal and Stanford, it might be the league’s best option.
 
The AD’s are not making these decisions.

Right, it’s the presidents and chancellors. And so far, their motivations for realignment have been solely for greater football money, not the possibility of better positioning for academic grants.

I don’t know why that would suddenly become a driving factor in their decision making when it apparently hasn’t been up to this point, so I was questioning why someone even threw it out there. It’s all about football TV money, period.
 
Right, it’s the presidents and chancellors. And so far, their motivations for realignment have been solely for greater football money, not the possibility of better positioning for academic grants.

I don’t know why that would suddenly become a driving factor in their decision making when it apparently hasn’t been up to this point, so I was questioning why someone even threw it out there. It’s all about football TV money, period.
I’m not sure I totally agree with this. The Big East was in fine shape when the schools joined the ACC, several of them likely to join similarly minded academic institutions. Cal and Stanford reportedly turned down the Big 12 for academic reasons. Sure, it’s not the top priority for run of the mill schools. But the ACC is not just run of the mill schools. It includes some of the top schools in the nation.
 
So who gets Bill Walton and “Conference of Champions” in the divorce?
 
I’m not sure I totally agree with this. The Big East was in fine shape when the schools joined the ACC, several of them likely to join similarly minded academic institutions. Cal and Stanford reportedly turned down the Big 12 for academic reasons. Sure, it’s not the top priority for run of the mill schools. But the ACC is not just run of the mill schools. It includes some of the top schools in the nation.

That it does.

And university presidents will make the expansion decision.... those presidents want to be affiliated with top flight schools.

We shall soon see.
 
I’m not sure I totally agree with this. The Big East was in fine shape when the schools joined the ACC, several of them likely to join similarly minded academic institutions. Cal and Stanford reportedly turned down the Big 12 for academic reasons. Sure, it’s not the top priority for run of the mill schools. But the ACC is not just run of the mill schools. It includes some of the top schools in the nation.
Still, it is all about football. The folks in the other side getting all the grants and doing all the research probably don’t know a thing about pigskin in this form.
 
Back
Top