Although there were some reports that the ACC might be on the verge of inviting the California Golden Bears and Stanford Cardinal, those efforts still have not led to a vote.
I hope Cal and Stanford end up in the Big 12 (rather than the ACC) as now being floated. Less travel for the athletes and fans, if separated into East /West divisions. Better money, especially if UCLA payout to Cal becomes a reality. Too bad the Pac 12 wasn't farsighted enough to look at a merger with the Big 12 to begin with, instead of each school only looking out for itself (UCLA and USC). Traditions could have been preserved with less impact to athletes and fans. Does athletic league really affect a school's academic reputation? My guess is that Cal and Stanford will continue to be looked upon as elite academic institutions regardless of where they play sports.
The full thread here suggests that the ACC schools are now just haggling over how the new revenue should be split, not about whether or not to add the new schools. Cal and Stanford at reduced share, SMU for no share for 7 years.
How come the ACC members don't cooperate and renegotiate their contract with ESPN? I'm sure this has been asked and answered elsewhere, but it seems like a no-brainer.
Yes, but all parties, including Disney (ESPN), might benefit from a new contract. Disney is reeling just now and it would stand to reason they would want the ACC to survive, beyond the present contract, to keep that asset locked in. Or they might want to unload that asset. Dunno', but does not seem like a happy arrangement and a mutually happier contract might be better for all parties.
With that being said, as you point out, the value of the existing contract is likely to only increase for the next decade given inflation. Kind of like pension payouts without COLAs.
The chatter on the ACC websites shows a lot of fan opposition to adding Standford and Cal, not that this affects the decision-making. Interestingly one of the arguments about not adding the schools it that they would compete for the best athletes. As one UVA fan wrote: "We will improve our recruiting abilities if Stanford and Cal are diminished. They are no friends of ours." This is very different from the positive support from Big 10 fans.
What happens to OSU and WSU if Calfurd joins the ACC? Does the PAC-2 then merge w the Mountain West? If it wasn’t for pesky money issues, I’d prefer that the PAC-4 add teams rather than have teams fly a million miles. Feels wrong to abandon those two schools, but not much choice?
Noble intentions only go so far on a sinking ship. This is about program survival. Best case scenario, OSU and Wazzou end up with us or on one of the other remaining P4 programs.
UNC's women's soccer coach is afraid of some real competition from Cal and Furd, so he wants us to "die on the vine." If I were on his team I would head straight for the transfer portal and find a school with a coach who wants to compete against the best.
You're taking this out of context. He's talking about competing for recruiting talent. If we had the chance to wipe out USC and take their football players, you think we would say no because we like to compete (and lose) against them?
Larry Scott hurt PAC12, but hiring and extending a mediocre head coach led to a steady decline in our attendance rates which hurt our chances of finding a better home
Somewhat adjacent topic -- On the prospect of playing more NIGHT games in the future, regardless of where we end up... I know it sucks for the game day experience, hurts turnout, and also sucks for us on the east coast with some of those games ending at 2am.. But, a major pet peeve of mine has always been with the fact that our team's sideline is on the east side of the stadium, where our coaches and players stand with the blazing sun in their faces all game, while the visiting team stands comfortably in the shade. My gut tells me this has a detrimental effect, though no coach or player would likely admit it..
So -- I doubt the data is readily available, but it would be interesting to see if we're statistically better during night games using various measures.
Okay, here's how you solve that - move the student section(s) to one of the two end zones or at least far enough north or south on the east side so that the visiting team is not in front of the student section(s). Seriously, it's a requirement.
This is why Cal Memorial's configuration is an outlier among college football stadia - the students have seats at midfield. And this is possible because they are in back of the home team.
Greg still seems pretty confident that an ACC invite will be happening, so I guess I'll go with that.
Reports of "they still don't have the votes yet" don't mean much to me. Yeah, no shit . . . if they had the votes they would have voted already. Question is, are they moving towards having the votes?
Relax everyone, Carol's on it, Jim too. They've assured us in their own words, they're not just idly standing by, of course not. Plus, the Drake has his all-seeing, duck-eye on them. And, what about the regents, including the Big Guy, the guv; do you think those worthy sages are not in the know? C'mon, this one's in the bag. Tell all those worrywarts out there that I said to stand down. It's a done deal or my name's not Alfred E. Neuman!
The a c c does not have a choice. If they want to remain relevant is a power five cothey need both Stanford and the University of California period especially if Florida is talking about leaving. On top of that, the media market here is the fourth largest in the nation, and that is a big time footprint for the a c c.
That's my take too - I mean the only reason to vote no I would think is as a vote of "we want out of this conference." Assuming that the big football schools will leave the ACC as soon as practical, we're the best options available for the ACC - otherwise they'll be looking at raiding lower tier conferences and be in the same boat as the Pac currently is. It's not very often that schools of Stanford and Cal's caliber (granted not the most awesome time for either in revenue sports) are just available like this.
I do think the ACC eventually offers and what will be interesting is if that pushes the Big Ten to change their thinking - it's one thing when it's abstract, it might well be another when their chance for a west coast pod of high quality academic schools is about to go poof.
Have the idiots seen the Neilsen reports in July. Streaming beat out regular and cable viewership in July. Apple's shaking their heads at these fools, sheep will be sheep.
It does seem like the PAC-12 had the right idea, just poor execution and bad timing. The P12N did a good job at showcasing our Olympic sports, which was one of the bigger strengths of the P12. In a world of streaming, long tail viewership can really add up (see youtube for example). If you are going to be pouring money into those Olympic sports anyways, might as well throw them on a streaming service and slap a few ads in there.
I suspect that the first conference that goes streaming will look like geniuses 10 years from now. Once you have gotten the fans accustomed to paying directly for the product, you will always have some leverage in future media deals because you could spin up a dedicated streaming service as a last resort if your media partners aren't willing to pony up. And I highly suspect as the cord cutting continues over the next decade we are going to see some networks find ways out of existing deals as they become seriously unprofitable.
Unfortunately for us, a good idea executed poorly, and with bad timing proved to be fatal.
From my understanding, adding Cal, stanfurd, and SMU would interfere with Florida St and Clemson's ability to dissolve the conference (guessing so they wouldn't have to pay the Grant of Right penalty). If Cal, stanfurd, and SMU get into the ACC they would of course vote no on any effort by Florida St. and Clemson to dissolve the ACC.
If they had the votes to dissolve, they would have done that already. Nobody is switching sides at this point because it's about survival. FSU is just waiting for the exit fees to get low enough that they'll bite.
Teams leaving conferences just seem to want them to burn so that they'll have less regional competition in their new conferences.
I hope Cal and Stanford end up in the Big 12 (rather than the ACC) as now being floated. Less travel for the athletes and fans, if separated into East /West divisions. Better money, especially if UCLA payout to Cal becomes a reality. Too bad the Pac 12 wasn't farsighted enough to look at a merger with the Big 12 to begin with, instead of each school only looking out for itself (UCLA and USC). Traditions could have been preserved with less impact to athletes and fans. Does athletic league really affect a school's academic reputation? My guess is that Cal and Stanford will continue to be looked upon as elite academic institutions regardless of where they play sports.
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1694397488118071613?s=20
I think it's getting serious now.
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1694435445877231775
The full thread here suggests that the ACC schools are now just haggling over how the new revenue should be split, not about whether or not to add the new schools. Cal and Stanford at reduced share, SMU for no share for 7 years.
Notre Dame AD is a graduate of Stanford law school. I've thrown that out of the window and am rooting for him.
Beware of trees or Leprechauns bearing gifts.
or the PonyExce$$ LOL.
https://twitter.com/Mmarion8/status/1694450388747825235
My wife and have been binge watching Dallas. Explains the SMU supporters’ war chest and their infamy.
Here's a dumb question:
How come the ACC members don't cooperate and renegotiate their contract with ESPN? I'm sure this has been asked and answered elsewhere, but it seems like a no-brainer.
Why would ESPN want to pay more money for ACC rights if they have an ironclad contract through 2036?
Yes, but all parties, including Disney (ESPN), might benefit from a new contract. Disney is reeling just now and it would stand to reason they would want the ACC to survive, beyond the present contract, to keep that asset locked in. Or they might want to unload that asset. Dunno', but does not seem like a happy arrangement and a mutually happier contract might be better for all parties.
With that being said, as you point out, the value of the existing contract is likely to only increase for the next decade given inflation. Kind of like pension payouts without COLAs.
Money, get away
You get a good job with more pay and you're OK
Money, it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four-star daydream
Think I'll buy me a FOOTBALL TEAM
Money, get back
I'm alright, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack
Money, it's a hit
Ah, don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit
Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
-TV Networks
The chatter on the ACC websites shows a lot of fan opposition to adding Standford and Cal, not that this affects the decision-making. Interestingly one of the arguments about not adding the schools it that they would compete for the best athletes. As one UVA fan wrote: "We will improve our recruiting abilities if Stanford and Cal are diminished. They are no friends of ours." This is very different from the positive support from Big 10 fans.
Positive support minus Fox, while $C makes threats in the background.
That seems to be the key difference here:
-B1G fans want us, media partner does not
-ACC fans don't want us, media partner does
Then let's switch media partners! ESPN gets Big 10 and Cal/Furd!
What happens to OSU and WSU if Calfurd joins the ACC? Does the PAC-2 then merge w the Mountain West? If it wasn’t for pesky money issues, I’d prefer that the PAC-4 add teams rather than have teams fly a million miles. Feels wrong to abandon those two schools, but not much choice?
Noble intentions only go so far on a sinking ship. This is about program survival. Best case scenario, OSU and Wazzou end up with us or on one of the other remaining P4 programs.
UNC's women's soccer coach is afraid of some real competition from Cal and Furd, so he wants us to "die on the vine." If I were on his team I would head straight for the transfer portal and find a school with a coach who wants to compete against the best.
You're taking this out of context. He's talking about competing for recruiting talent. If we had the chance to wipe out USC and take their football players, you think we would say no because we like to compete (and lose) against them?
We did. Everyone was gleeful when USC got sanctions.
But that was the beginning of the end on the pac12. $C being bad for so long caused west coast football to die.
Well, that and the fact that no one could watch our games (thanks Larry Scott).
Larry Scott hurt PAC12, but hiring and extending a mediocre head coach led to a steady decline in our attendance rates which hurt our chances of finding a better home
Somewhat adjacent topic -- On the prospect of playing more NIGHT games in the future, regardless of where we end up... I know it sucks for the game day experience, hurts turnout, and also sucks for us on the east coast with some of those games ending at 2am.. But, a major pet peeve of mine has always been with the fact that our team's sideline is on the east side of the stadium, where our coaches and players stand with the blazing sun in their faces all game, while the visiting team stands comfortably in the shade. My gut tells me this has a detrimental effect, though no coach or player would likely admit it..
So -- I doubt the data is readily available, but it would be interesting to see if we're statistically better during night games using various measures.
Okay, here's how you solve that - move the student section(s) to one of the two end zones or at least far enough north or south on the east side so that the visiting team is not in front of the student section(s). Seriously, it's a requirement.
This is why Cal Memorial's configuration is an outlier among college football stadia - the students have seats at midfield. And this is possible because they are in back of the home team.
One could almost as easily hypothesize that the sunny side helps keep those athletes on that side stay warmed up and toned for the game.
What a strange time. I’m not even looking forward to the games this weekend. CFB is sort of dead to me.
Greg still seems pretty confident that an ACC invite will be happening, so I guess I'll go with that.
Reports of "they still don't have the votes yet" don't mean much to me. Yeah, no shit . . . if they had the votes they would have voted already. Question is, are they moving towards having the votes?
How long can/will negotiations to get those votes potentially go on before ACC decides it ain't happening, schedules a meeting, and votes no?
I prefer to believe that the delay is being caused by the hashing out of details that the holdouts need in order to be swayed to a yes.
I have to guess that if the answer was definitely no, they would have said something. It has to be because they are still negotiating.
Probably they want to have this settled before the football season starts, but that’s not guaranteed either.
The behind closed doors negotiations (and under the table dealing) must be both fascinating and greasy.
Thank you, and well done, Avi. Fantastic timeline/recap of recent events.
Relax everyone, Carol's on it, Jim too. They've assured us in their own words, they're not just idly standing by, of course not. Plus, the Drake has his all-seeing, duck-eye on them. And, what about the regents, including the Big Guy, the guv; do you think those worthy sages are not in the know? C'mon, this one's in the bag. Tell all those worrywarts out there that I said to stand down. It's a done deal or my name's not Alfred E. Neuman!
The a c c does not have a choice. If they want to remain relevant is a power five cothey need both Stanford and the University of California period especially if Florida is talking about leaving. On top of that, the media market here is the fourth largest in the nation, and that is a big time footprint for the a c c.
That's my take too - I mean the only reason to vote no I would think is as a vote of "we want out of this conference." Assuming that the big football schools will leave the ACC as soon as practical, we're the best options available for the ACC - otherwise they'll be looking at raiding lower tier conferences and be in the same boat as the Pac currently is. It's not very often that schools of Stanford and Cal's caliber (granted not the most awesome time for either in revenue sports) are just available like this.
I do think the ACC eventually offers and what will be interesting is if that pushes the Big Ten to change their thinking - it's one thing when it's abstract, it might well be another when their chance for a west coast pod of high quality academic schools is about to go poof.
Have the idiots seen the Neilsen reports in July. Streaming beat out regular and cable viewership in July. Apple's shaking their heads at these fools, sheep will be sheep.
It does seem like the PAC-12 had the right idea, just poor execution and bad timing. The P12N did a good job at showcasing our Olympic sports, which was one of the bigger strengths of the P12. In a world of streaming, long tail viewership can really add up (see youtube for example). If you are going to be pouring money into those Olympic sports anyways, might as well throw them on a streaming service and slap a few ads in there.
I suspect that the first conference that goes streaming will look like geniuses 10 years from now. Once you have gotten the fans accustomed to paying directly for the product, you will always have some leverage in future media deals because you could spin up a dedicated streaming service as a last resort if your media partners aren't willing to pony up. And I highly suspect as the cord cutting continues over the next decade we are going to see some networks find ways out of existing deals as they become seriously unprofitable.
Unfortunately for us, a good idea executed poorly, and with bad timing proved to be fatal.
Why do Cal and Stanford joining the ACC make it harder for Florida State and Clemson to leave?
From my understanding, adding Cal, stanfurd, and SMU would interfere with Florida St and Clemson's ability to dissolve the conference (guessing so they wouldn't have to pay the Grant of Right penalty). If Cal, stanfurd, and SMU get into the ACC they would of course vote no on any effort by Florida St. and Clemson to dissolve the ACC.
If they had the votes to dissolve, they would have done that already. Nobody is switching sides at this point because it's about survival. FSU is just waiting for the exit fees to get low enough that they'll bite.
Teams leaving conferences just seem to want them to burn so that they'll have less regional competition in their new conferences.