• 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

Shooshmoo said:
contingency, bro. Also, I'm sure Trump has stiffed some lawyers in his day.
Click to expand...
Most of them. Rudy got stiffed for all of that work in 2020 which cost him his law license and will eventually cost him his freedom. And he’s broke on top of that.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I asked earlier and there wasn’t an answer I don’t think but doesn’t the fact that the SEC and the Big 10 are both in an arms race with each other undercut an anti-trust allegation (not taking into consideration the larger NCAA question)
Click to expand...

They are in collusion.
 
macktheknife said:
FSU. The psychological study. People in power making bank blame The ACC for ten years of football obscurity while Clemson wins two championships. And convinced their fans it’s true. We need SEC money to compete. Nothing to do with decisions they made. If we had been in the SEC we would be Georgia. Same people who fucked themselves still blaming outside forces. How about you clean house. This ruse is all about keeping jobs in a hard core world. No one calls it out. Dumbest fanbase on the planet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Clemson didn't win that last National Championship so that proves FSU is right that it can't be done without B1G money.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
With separate TV deals driving it? I don't see it.
Click to expand...

You must be blind to today’s reality. Do you seriously think the people providing these contracts don’t talk. Third hole. You take these. We take these. Wow. Nice tee shot. We are surrounded by monopolies. It just took a while to get to college football.
 
macktheknife said:
You must be blind to today’s reality. Do you seriously think the people providing these contracts don’t talk. Third hole. You take these. We take these. Wow. Nice tee shot. We are surrounded by monopolies. It just took a while to get to college football.
Click to expand...
I mean they've got the same end goal in mind and are both trying to add teams to grow the pie but no I don't think they're dividing up teams without both also reaching out to see what would be the best for themselves.
 
First, i'll believe all this when an announcement is made but some thoughts and rumors.

Last week it was being reported Standford/Cal were looking at taking a 60-70% share, now we are talking about 30% plus travel. If that ends up being the what happens that is some good negotiating by ACC.

ACC has a pro rata clause with ESPN so if schools are added ESPN is contractually bound to increase its payments to the conference by a whole share. (They had the same clause in their new contract with B12 that allowed B12 to add the 4 PAC schools. For the B12 it only included P5 additions, don't know if the ACC is the same).

This talk that the media companies turned down the PAC at $30M and are now paying that anyway is not really accurate. ESPN put a $30M offer out to PAC last year. PAC countered at $50M and ESPN was reportedly taken aback by that offer and didn't make any counter. It's more PAC turned down $30M than media companies did. After turning down the $#0M per school offer the market dried up and linear programmers were not willing to offer even that anymore as B12 sucked up most of the content still needed.

ACC looked at adding PAC teams last year but passed because adding them at a full share did not help the conference. Once it started to fall apart and it became apparent PAC teams would take less than full shares than that changed the equation for the ACC. But no PAC school would have taken less than a full share from a new conference until they could not get a linear TV deal.

B12 reached out to Stanford about joining, but Stanford had no interest. Stanford would rather join the ACC at a greatly reduced payout (or try to go it on its own) than join the B12. That doesn't really play into the B12 is stronger than the ACC talking points that many in the media like to promote.

ND will never join a conference as long as it has a legitimate path to the playoffs as an independent, but the idea that ND has not been financially beneficial for the ACC is not accurate. They get no money from the ACC for football (they only get a share of the basketball portion of the media rights) and their inclusion allowed ACC to get a higher payout than it would have without them.

Rumors are that UNC/NCST are the ones that are ready to potentially flip.

ACC schools are not $30M behind the Big 2 right now - though they likely will be by the end of the decade. In the most recent financial reports B1G payed out $59M per school, SEC $49M per school, and ACC $39M per school. The Big 2 contracts are going to accelerate more over the next 5-10 yrs than the ACC does, but people saying ACC schools are $30M behind the Big 2 right now are not looking at the actual financials.

IMO there is not really a market out there right now for the Big 2 to further expand. There are very few schools that would warrant a full share in either the SEC or B1G right now. Which is why WA and OR are going to get $30M per year from the B1G.
 
The presidents of fifteen ACC universities must decide if Stanford, Cal and SMU are worthy of membership into the ACC. Forget football and money for a moment and ask yourself if each of those schools would enhance the academic reputation of the conference. SMU (#72) might be questionable. For most academics (presidents) it would be a privilege to sit at the same table with Stanford (#3) and California (#20) on a regular basis.

This would also give the ACC seven universities ranked in the Top 30. Combined, the rest of the Power conference schools have six. ACC with nine Top 50 schools to eleven for the rest. It's 17 Top 75 schools for the ACC to 18 for the all others combined.

What difference does that make? If the B1G and SEC decide to go it alone in a power play, a conference composed of top academic schools is already formed. Add Northwestern (#10) and Vanderbilt (#13) if they are thrown to the curb or decide they have more in common with an academic conference. A media package for a conference of this nature is not out of the question. I suspect the alumni of this group of schools could make it happen.

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.
 
Last edited:
BlackjackMc said:
The presidents of fifteen ACC universities must decide if Stanford, Cal and SMU are worthy of membership into the ACC. Forget football and money for a moment and ask yourself if each of those schools would enhance the academic reputation of the conference. SMU (#72) might be questionable. For most academics (presidents) it would be a privilege to sit at the same table with Stanford (#3) and California (#20) on a regular basis.

This would also give the ACC seven universities ranked in the Top 30. Combined, the rest of the Power conference schools have six. ACC with nine Top 50 schools to eleven for the rest. It's 17 Top 75 schools for the ACC to 18 for the all others combined.

What difference does that make? If the B1G and SEC decide to go it alone in a power play, a conference composed of top academic schools is already formed. Add Northwestern (#10) and Vanderbilt (#13) if they are thrown to the curb or decide they have more in common with an academic conference. A media package for a conference of this nature is not out of the question. I suspect the alumni of this group of schools could make it happen.

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.
Click to expand...
This is the most important thing here. Presidents are making this call and presidents largely don’t give a shit about athletics. People forget that there is a lot more money in academic grants coming into schools every year than these tv contracts are paying. Team up with some more grant powerhouses. Cover the gap by getting a gigantic NSF grant or something.
 
The most interesting "fact" raised today is Rambling Red's advising that the Big 12 invited Stanford and Cal, and they said no, because they coveted an ACC invite. If true, that really changes the dynamic, and should help dispel the notion that the Big 12 has somehow moved past the ACC as the #3 conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top