Not sure what the end game would be aside from ND wanting to be associated with the academic rep of Cal and furd. I guess they don't have to worry about money so...
My best guess: ND's ROI is in maintaining Stanford as a P4 school so that their annual matchup maintains relevance. As an independent, ND needs to have a strong SOS to maximize their chances in the playoffs, and Stanford getting relegated to a mid-major or FCS drastically hurts ND's positioning.
Sankey's talking point support the idea of why ND is pushing for Cal/Stanford (probably just Stanford) to be part of the ACC.
"Now here we are with more membership movement questions about how many conferences will exist," he said. "It just raises the questions that are not fully back to a starting point about conference champion access, about how a bracket is seeded, particularly the adjustment around Notre Dame remaining an independent not having that top-four seed status. Those matters really need to be dug into and understood."
Interesting point for the ACC, flipping Notre Dame in football might be the thing that keeps the conference alive, long term. The Virginia fan (Bryan) in this thread reiterated the Notre Dame play.
Interview with Troy Taylor, with two interesting points:
First is that, in his opinion, travel for the players is no big deal. They'd rather take a 5-hour flight and play big-time P5 teams instead of a 1-hour flight to play MW or AAC teams.
Second is that sources at furd are saying there will be resolution by the end of the week. Not sure how that can happen if they are really just in an early exploratory phase.
Cal & Stanford’s would be similar to Hawaii, when Hawaii goes out on the road for men’s or women’s basketball and they have to go to the mainland to play a game they don’t just travel back-and-forth they go out on 2 14 Day Road trips to mitigate the travel costs and I would imagine both Stanford and Cal would have to do something similar. Joining the ACC would be bad for Cal and Stanford. As I mentioned earlier the best path forward for Stanford and Cal and the rest of the Pac 12 members would be to take Idaho and Idaho State Montana Montana State those schools would have to move up to FBS but they wouldn’t have to pay an exorbitant exit fee they could immediately join the conference.. now Idaho and Idaho state would probably have to build new stadiums but I would think those schools would be very open to doing that if they knew they were going to be in the Pac 12 conference and have an opportunity to play for the Rose Bowl every year . Then after the 24 season they could get their pick of the mountain west schools to join say UNLV, San Diego State, Colorado State, Air Force along with SMU & Rice. The travel for the remaining Pac 12 schools would be a lot more manageable and they would also retain control of having your conference champion in football be able to play in the Rose Bowl. Maybe those member institutions could get $20-$25 million per school from a TV media rights deal
No I’m not aware of that, even though the Pac 12 exist with limited membership I would assume that the terms of the Rose Bowl agreement haven’t changed unless I’m missing something
The BCS was replaced in 2014 by the College Football Playoff, which selects four teams for two national semifinal games, leading to a championship game. As part of the arrangement, the Rose Bowl game functions as a semifinal playoff game every three years.
I do not support an ACC merger, for the same reason that I opposed the B!G.
This sucks for student-athletes and as a former one at Cal, I feel I have a sound perspective.
I get alums and fans here are begging for anything anywhere, but let's stop being selfish and think about what this does to our lads traveling in tight seats, sore after a game and with a mid-term 48 hours after they land! Most of you were not student-athletes and if you were told that this would be your life style you would have opted out of attending Cal. Be real.
Our leadership team failed us on multiple levels, this will only perpetuate that. They will claim how great this deal is and how hard they work and y'all will fall in lock step with this bullshit.
Now, let's get to recruiting. UNC and Cal are recruiting you. What is the first thing UNC says to you? Come to UNC, at worst you travel cross country 1x a year, go to Cal and you travel cross country 3 - 4 times a year while maintaining your eligibility. Where do you think that recruit is going to go, where would you go? And yet y'all be the first to say Cal sucks at recruiting.
Other than $$$$ there is nothing to support/see here.
Appreciate your firsthand experience and perspective, and I might just have a taco tonight.
Your argument against the ACC is also flawed though. The college athletics landscape has changed significantly (turned upside for the Pac12) since you were an athlete.
Recruits aren't faced with decisions of Cal v. UNC if ACC accepts Cal/Stanford into their league... Cal is facing relegation in football and athletic extinction from a budget/finance perspective. If Cal doesn't find a home in the power 4 conferences, Cal faces an existential crisis in which we wouldn't even be talking about recruits at all, or at least not the same caliber of athletes (e.g., FCS status).
If you were successful enough of an athlete to decide between Cal v. UNC, you likely wouldn't even have Cal in your top 20 if Cal was in a mid-major conference.
And to be clear, most (if not all) of us hate what's happened over the past year and especially over the past week - we can talk about blame ad nauseum over beer sometime.
But as a Cal fan and nearly 2 decade football season ticket holder, I do want Cal athletics to continue competing at the highest level. Cal rejecting (or not pursuing) a power 4 conference invite is not an option. As much as this can suck for student athletes if Cal is in the ACC - and your argument truly resonates - it'll suck exponentially more for the entire Cal community if Cal is out of the power 4: student athletes won't have budget (or even a team), competition against FCS/ mid-majors, fans and supporters, reputation and prestige, etc.
I’m thinking about tacos right now lol. I agree with your take. I think the path forward is to add 4 members immediately to get to 8 teams then wait until after the 24 school year to add Mountain West members when their exit fee reduces to $17 million.
It’s never gonna be the same Pac 12 but those new institutions can add value and create rivalries. I would think Air Force versus Cal could be a really good rivalry. Idaho vs Washington State are only 9 miles away from each other that would be a great rivalry. SMU & Rice vs Cal would also be good!
IF we are truly okay with pivoting and sacrificing our "D1" status (e.g., power 4 conference), I can actually support creating an "Ivy League west" type approach. Start with Cal and Stanford, then recruit the other top academic schools west of the Mississippi, like Rice, and probably other good schools like Davis, Santa Barbara, Irvine. Financially, we'd be dead in the water, but if we are okay to stop chasing the Jonses, I don't mind chanting, "Nobel Prizes" against other teams. :D
Except that this is no longer a power conference and it would bankrupt the Athletic Department.
Our best bet is to take whatever P4 offer we can get, do really well, and then hope we have more control of our destiny next time the shake up happens.
Only other option is the MWC, but sports will be lost if we take that route.
Hmm… I have yet to hear compelling reasons why we think enough ACC schools will vote for this to clear the hurdle. I get why Cal in particular would probably accept a painfully low percentage but seems too many variables/negatives to put our hopes on this one. I REALLY hope we wind up in a good place but seems more likely ACC doesn’t move forward and we’re back to MWC discussion.
I'm a little surprised the B1G hasn't swooped in to try to pick off Cal and Stanford now, so as to leave the ACC teetering in its current state. Letting them expand into California and Texas presents at least a nominal threat to the B1G's future dominance.
But I guess there is still time. They might still be waiting to see what a potential deal looks like.
B1G waited to see what the market rate was for Oregon and Wash, then took them at that rate. There is a chance that they'll do the same thing for Cal and Stanford. But as a Cal fan, since the ACC option is worse, I assume that is more likely.
Yea I think it still makes sense. Not sure what the harm is in expanding to 20 teams instead of 18 with 4 divisions.
How about:
Pacific:
- Oregon
- Washington
- Cal
- UCLA
- Stanford
West Central
- USC
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
- Minnesota
- Nebraska
East Central
- Purdue
- Indiana
- Michigan State
- Northwestern
- Illinois
East
- Penn State
- Rutgers
- Maryland
- Ohio State
- Michigan
Albeit - think it'd make a lot more sense to add WSU or Oregon State along with Stanford and cal and have 3 divisions of 7 teams. Wishful thinking. Feel bad for those guys.
This definitely will not be a permanent solution. ACC might dissolve in a few years so all the travel would be temporary while we get East Coast exposure, so I'm starting to like the idea.
Hmm yeah I guess depends on which article you read.
The first one I read didn't have TX as #1, but another one from 2022 has TX #1, CA #2, FL #3, NC #4.. either way. same point that NC is surprisingly high on this list.
it would be hilarious to think, cal & stanford lobbying ACC to take them.. saying we want to be part of ACC, we'll take anything, let's work it out, look at the all the benefits, it'll be an awesome arrangement, this can work..... while ACC tries to squeeze as much out of them.... then big 10 says "ok we'll take you for chump change" and then CAL & Stanford immediately saying YES.
Newellbany and I were talking about this yesterday - don’t think there’s any chance Cal and Stanford join the ACC. None of it makes sense…none.
But who benefits by dragging Cal and ‘Furd into this fantasy just so the ACC can pass on them? ESPN? I mean, most people can agree that the Bay Area schools to the Atlantic Coast Conference is patently absurd.
The current rush of conference realignment generally is patently absurd but it seems to flow in the direction of the dollars. If the ACC deal flows in that same direction, then Cal and Furd will follow
But any movement by Cal and Stanford is predicated on the decision makers at those two schools…unfortunately, Stanford’s President is in hot water, and Carol Christ/Jim Knowlton/UC Regents are as inept as you can possibly get.
To pull off a move anything like this takes forward thinking, dynamic leadership, which neither Cal nor Stanford possess. This is largely responsible for the lack of success in the revenue sports by both schools the past 5 years and a huge reason why both schools were left behind multiple times already.
Does Gavin Newsom figure into impacting any of this? Don't think I've heard his name mentioned anywhere on the subject since the original UCLA controversy last year.
I mean, wouldn’t you think he should? His silence has been deafening throughout all these issues, and it’s costing the state big time.
Not to go political, as I’m a fan of Gavin’s, but he really does seem hyper-focused on his anti-Florida/anti-Texas ad campaign while the State of California is literally falling apart.
Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner lobbied to make sure that Virginia Tech got Syracuse's spot in the ACC's 2004-05 expansion. I wasn't a fan of that idea or of Mark Warner, nor am I a fan of Governor Newsom.
Agreed - the lack of leadership is what got us in this mess and will keep us there for the foreseeable future. But I would imagine dollars would make it easier to decide on the path forward (assuming they get over their ennui)
This is where you would hope the Regents and UC prez would give a shit and be bold but they too are useless…
Perhaps. I hear ya, O.O, but, man, there really is no getting leverage with the B1G, especially when the one thing they’ve been consistent on is a reluctance to expand to 20.
Hey, I’d love it if they joined the ACC - that would be awesome. I’m hopeful, just not confident.
Honestly, I don’t know. The MWC is a non-starter - there’s not enough $ to survive. The Big 12 is not a cultural fit for either school. My hope is of course the B1G, but not sure it’s viable right now. Stanford could go Independent but I think we would struggle.
You all know I’m unabashedly critical/cynical when it comes to Cal sports in the post-Sandy Barbour era…I never had any faith in Williams or Knowlton because this Cal job is unlike most AD gigs…and this leadership vacuum terrifies me.
If you can cobble together an SMU to go with the Bay Area’s, then maybe the ACC can work, regardless of how ludicrous it sounds!
Seems like the best of a series of bad options, if the Big 12 is out and the Big Ten is not answering our calls. Maybe we can borrow a few Falcon Heavies from Elon to help with the travel?
If the Big 12, B1G, and SEC are no-gos this appears to be the only option that would allow us to pay off the stadium debt and keep all our nonrevenue sports. I assume we're still talking to the other 3 big leagues even if the prospect of the talk leading to action is remote at the moment.
I think the big hurdle might be the ACC fans themselves. Read some of the threads; they are not onboard with this; they need convincing. Totally a different situation than with the B1G and Big 12 dumbos enthusiastic support of poaching the Pac.
I don't think a three school add makes much sense for the ACC. If they are going to go that route, it needs to be a bigger, bolder grab (e.g., Cal, Stanfurd, SDSU, SMU, Tulane, and Connecticut...or maybe Cal, Stanfurd, Wazzu, Oregon State, SDSU, UNR, UNLV, Boise State, SMU and Tulane in some kind of western pod). This would ease the travel burden a bit for the western schools (sans Connecticut). The flipside is that the realized travel burden is really not all that bad for the ACC schools if it is only Cal and Stanford, but gets worse for the existing schools as more schools from the south and southwest are added.
And, of course, this all depends on the media G*ds/devils and whether they see any value here. It's a risk because some individual success is required for each school to raise its valuation, but not everybody can win.
As a Virginia fan, I'm going to have to disagree with your sentiment. This may actually be a brilliant move on the ACC's part and here's why:
Cal and Stanford would likely take reduced payouts to start and SMU has stated that they could forego conference distributions at first because they desperately want to get into a power conference and have wealthy donors who would support them. When they were in the SWC, SMU played home games at the Cotton Bowl and Texas Stadium; if their level of competition goes up, their current facility is too small. They can call up Jerry Jones and split the gate for a larger venue where they can charge more per ticket for amenities and strength of opponent.
Adding the three teams gets the ACC to a potentially awkward 17 teams in football, but remember that Notre Dame is a member for all other sports and that they would have to join the ACC if they forego independence or they may be subject to a significant buyout. Why does this matter? The Big Ten schools are already throwing around the idea of playing 10 conference games. If the ACC expands, they would have to go to 9 or 10 games. More conference games means fewer opportunities for Notre Dame to schedule quality opponents which hurts the two facets their independence relies on: their television money (NBC isn't paying to show Notre Dame play Marshall, Wyoming, and Army; they want Michigan, USC, and Stanford) and their access to the playoff (a weak schedule could keep them out, even with six or seven at-large spots up for grabs). Notre Dame seriously has to consider being the 18th school in ACC football under this scenario.
How familiar are you with the TV rights deal? As I understand it, if FSU and Clemson leave, they forfeit their TV rights, losing $40M per year each. But if they went to the SEC, they would make it more valuable, and ESPN might think it's worth it to support them in the SEC (would you rather sell ads for a Bama-FSU game or a Bama-Vandy game on a saturday afternoon?), leaving the forfeited cash to be split among the remaining 12 schools. Further assume that Cal and Stanford accept $30M instead of 40, and there is an extra $8.5M per year for the existing schools.
I don't know if this is reasonable or possible given the existing contracts, but the concept of selling FSU/Clemson, buying Cal/Stanford, and pocketing the difference might be appealing.
You're right on. If one checks out the ACC fan sites, one sees a lot of hostility to adding Stanford and Cal. The fans of FSU, Miami and Clemson are especially opposed. One suggested that Standford and Cal only be added if the ACC can reduce the term of the GORs so teams can bail out early.
IMO, this is a brilliant move by the ACC. It gives them games in the PST to sale, it protects the conference from collapsing and it brings in a ND rival in Stanford.
Adding that many schools will make us completely a separate group within the ACC. They will just think of us as a bunch of lowly guys who are borrowing the name ACC but not really part of them.
It's not exciting either. I want Cal to play teams like Duke or Clemson, not MW schools.
As a Miami fan, I'd welcome having Stanford and Cal join. Can rebrand as the American Coastal Conference.
Ultimately what needs to happen is ACC schools to be on the same page in disbanding the current conference and starting a new one so they can get CBS and ESPN to bid on a new TV deal. Same with Prime and AppleTV.
Lastly the conference should agree on a tiered revenue model. Top 2 teams per division would earn a bigger annual payout.
Doing so appeases the disgruntled teams, keeps everyone together, and solidifies the new ACC as a Top 3 conference going forward.
This is scary: the UC Board of Regents "offered Chancellor Christ full support as she and her leadership team pursue their options." Holy shit, talk about out of touch. Also, now we have Michael Drake vouching for The Clueless One and her sidekick, The Empty Suit. These three stooges are our champions!!! Cal is screwed and doomed.
What's Larry doing nowadays? Counting his bills while laying on silk sheets doing pure cocaine off of a platinum tennis racket? The fact that those guys (and their cronies) got rich while destroying the Pac now seems criminal.
Larry certainly screwed up big time for many years, but blame the Pac12 Presidents for their incompetence for not managing Larry out more timely (and instead doubled down on extending Larry).
Also, didn't we all celebrate Larry's "visionary" Pac12 network to expand interests and TV programming into our Olympic sports? It was a stupid gamble in hindsight, but I remember thinking, Pac12 is doing something different and I like it! (Then the whole thing actually rolled out with tons of issues... like lack of Direct TV... womp womp)
Something different? Wasn't there a MWC Network, a B1G network, etc. before this all went down? Or was it that we had ownership over it in a way that the others did not. The Pac-12 network made it damned hard to watch games. Limited distribution and spotty, sometimes, based on regional channel broadcasts. Even if your package had the Pac-12 Network, you might not have the channel you needed. It was/is a disaster for any fans outside of California.
Larry was just way too stubborn and wouldn't bring his price down for the P12 Network so it could get on more carriers. What good is owning a network if people can't watch it?
And I think the preexisting conference networks were part of the reason DirecTV passed. They were already stretched out and did not think the viewership warranted the price (and they were correct).
Yeah, those first 2-3 years of Scott were promising and exciting and then it all fell apart because Scott had to chase his White Whale, the Pac12 Network.
You're in! Welcome to the ACC!
Allegedly ND is going to bat for us according to Larry Williams.
"Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal"
Not sure what the end game would be aside from ND wanting to be associated with the academic rep of Cal and furd. I guess they don't have to worry about money so...
My best guess: ND's ROI is in maintaining Stanford as a P4 school so that their annual matchup maintains relevance. As an independent, ND needs to have a strong SOS to maximize their chances in the playoffs, and Stanford getting relegated to a mid-major or FCS drastically hurts ND's positioning.
the ND-furd ****show is the only time I root for ND tbh
Sankey's talking point support the idea of why ND is pushing for Cal/Stanford (probably just Stanford) to be part of the ACC.
"Now here we are with more membership movement questions about how many conferences will exist," he said. "It just raises the questions that are not fully back to a starting point about conference champion access, about how a bracket is seeded, particularly the adjustment around Notre Dame remaining an independent not having that top-four seed status. Those matters really need to be dug into and understood."
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38158929/greg-sankey-sees-sadness-realignment-says-sec-comfortable-footprint
Interesting point for the ACC, flipping Notre Dame in football might be the thing that keeps the conference alive, long term. The Virginia fan (Bryan) in this thread reiterated the Notre Dame play.
https://www.yardbarker.com/general_sports/articles/conference_realignment_notre_dame_pushing_hard_for_acc_to_add_cal_and_stanford/s1_17021_39114658
What if ACC adds ND, Stanford and SMU?
that would suck, so it's more likely to happen
We'll still have rugby?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38159813/troy-taylor-says-stanford-intends-remain-power-5-imagine-anything-else
Interview with Troy Taylor, with two interesting points:
First is that, in his opinion, travel for the players is no big deal. They'd rather take a 5-hour flight and play big-time P5 teams instead of a 1-hour flight to play MW or AAC teams.
Second is that sources at furd are saying there will be resolution by the end of the week. Not sure how that can happen if they are really just in an early exploratory phase.
Cal & Stanford’s would be similar to Hawaii, when Hawaii goes out on the road for men’s or women’s basketball and they have to go to the mainland to play a game they don’t just travel back-and-forth they go out on 2 14 Day Road trips to mitigate the travel costs and I would imagine both Stanford and Cal would have to do something similar. Joining the ACC would be bad for Cal and Stanford. As I mentioned earlier the best path forward for Stanford and Cal and the rest of the Pac 12 members would be to take Idaho and Idaho State Montana Montana State those schools would have to move up to FBS but they wouldn’t have to pay an exorbitant exit fee they could immediately join the conference.. now Idaho and Idaho state would probably have to build new stadiums but I would think those schools would be very open to doing that if they knew they were going to be in the Pac 12 conference and have an opportunity to play for the Rose Bowl every year . Then after the 24 season they could get their pick of the mountain west schools to join say UNLV, San Diego State, Colorado State, Air Force along with SMU & Rice. The travel for the remaining Pac 12 schools would be a lot more manageable and they would also retain control of having your conference champion in football be able to play in the Rose Bowl. Maybe those member institutions could get $20-$25 million per school from a TV media rights deal
The Pac-12 is dead, no point discussing how we can reanimate a corpse.
No network would pay that kind of money for those games
Not initially but if the conference could be successful in the playoff the could change.
You know there is no such thing as the Rose Bowl anymore for the PACxx champion, right?
And even if it did, Pac12 champion with FCS members wouldn't be invited to play in a Rose Bowl.
They wouldn’t be FCS members anymore they’d be FBS.
No I’m not aware of that, even though the Pac 12 exist with limited membership I would assume that the terms of the Rose Bowl agreement haven’t changed unless I’m missing something
The BCS was replaced in 2014 by the College Football Playoff, which selects four teams for two national semifinal games, leading to a championship game. As part of the arrangement, the Rose Bowl game functions as a semifinal playoff game every three years.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/rose-bowl-agreement-clears-way-for-college-football-playoffs-12-team-expansion-in-2024-and-2025/
And winning (or especially a tie for first place where you lose the tie breaker) is no guarantee that you get picked.
I do not support an ACC merger, for the same reason that I opposed the B!G.
This sucks for student-athletes and as a former one at Cal, I feel I have a sound perspective.
I get alums and fans here are begging for anything anywhere, but let's stop being selfish and think about what this does to our lads traveling in tight seats, sore after a game and with a mid-term 48 hours after they land! Most of you were not student-athletes and if you were told that this would be your life style you would have opted out of attending Cal. Be real.
Our leadership team failed us on multiple levels, this will only perpetuate that. They will claim how great this deal is and how hard they work and y'all will fall in lock step with this bullshit.
Now, let's get to recruiting. UNC and Cal are recruiting you. What is the first thing UNC says to you? Come to UNC, at worst you travel cross country 1x a year, go to Cal and you travel cross country 3 - 4 times a year while maintaining your eligibility. Where do you think that recruit is going to go, where would you go? And yet y'all be the first to say Cal sucks at recruiting.
Other than $$$$ there is nothing to support/see here.
Someone had to say it.
Now, go eat a taco.
Appreciate your firsthand experience and perspective, and I might just have a taco tonight.
Your argument against the ACC is also flawed though. The college athletics landscape has changed significantly (turned upside for the Pac12) since you were an athlete.
Recruits aren't faced with decisions of Cal v. UNC if ACC accepts Cal/Stanford into their league... Cal is facing relegation in football and athletic extinction from a budget/finance perspective. If Cal doesn't find a home in the power 4 conferences, Cal faces an existential crisis in which we wouldn't even be talking about recruits at all, or at least not the same caliber of athletes (e.g., FCS status).
If you were successful enough of an athlete to decide between Cal v. UNC, you likely wouldn't even have Cal in your top 20 if Cal was in a mid-major conference.
And to be clear, most (if not all) of us hate what's happened over the past year and especially over the past week - we can talk about blame ad nauseum over beer sometime.
But as a Cal fan and nearly 2 decade football season ticket holder, I do want Cal athletics to continue competing at the highest level. Cal rejecting (or not pursuing) a power 4 conference invite is not an option. As much as this can suck for student athletes if Cal is in the ACC - and your argument truly resonates - it'll suck exponentially more for the entire Cal community if Cal is out of the power 4: student athletes won't have budget (or even a team), competition against FCS/ mid-majors, fans and supporters, reputation and prestige, etc.
I’m thinking about tacos right now lol. I agree with your take. I think the path forward is to add 4 members immediately to get to 8 teams then wait until after the 24 school year to add Mountain West members when their exit fee reduces to $17 million.
It’s never gonna be the same Pac 12 but those new institutions can add value and create rivalries. I would think Air Force versus Cal could be a really good rivalry. Idaho vs Washington State are only 9 miles away from each other that would be a great rivalry. SMU & Rice vs Cal would also be good!
IF we are truly okay with pivoting and sacrificing our "D1" status (e.g., power 4 conference), I can actually support creating an "Ivy League west" type approach. Start with Cal and Stanford, then recruit the other top academic schools west of the Mississippi, like Rice, and probably other good schools like Davis, Santa Barbara, Irvine. Financially, we'd be dead in the water, but if we are okay to stop chasing the Jonses, I don't mind chanting, "Nobel Prizes" against other teams. :D
Except that this is no longer a power conference and it would bankrupt the Athletic Department.
Our best bet is to take whatever P4 offer we can get, do really well, and then hope we have more control of our destiny next time the shake up happens.
Only other option is the MWC, but sports will be lost if we take that route.
Hmm… I have yet to hear compelling reasons why we think enough ACC schools will vote for this to clear the hurdle. I get why Cal in particular would probably accept a painfully low percentage but seems too many variables/negatives to put our hopes on this one. I REALLY hope we wind up in a good place but seems more likely ACC doesn’t move forward and we’re back to MWC discussion.
This post lays out the basics:
https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/1689269888563523585
-SMU to play for free at first
-Cal/Furd at reduced share to start
-Extra ESPN money covers the travel cost
So basically, the entire ACC would get more money under this framework. Not a lot more money, but more. That would be the reason.
This is a proactive move by the ACC to protect itself from the potential defections of Clemson and FSU, therefore I think the votes will be there.
I'm a little surprised the B1G hasn't swooped in to try to pick off Cal and Stanford now, so as to leave the ACC teetering in its current state. Letting them expand into California and Texas presents at least a nominal threat to the B1G's future dominance.
But I guess there is still time. They might still be waiting to see what a potential deal looks like.
B1G waited to see what the market rate was for Oregon and Wash, then took them at that rate. There is a chance that they'll do the same thing for Cal and Stanford. But as a Cal fan, since the ACC option is worse, I assume that is more likely.
So does that mean we should be rooting for FSU and Clemson to defect by Aug 15?
No I think if that gun fires, all bets are off
We should root for deflections because it means more conference realignment.
We can't let all 4 P4 conferences sit comfortably for next few years.
This makes a lot more sense. Old but still relevant.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/p5m0yb/comment/h974lu8/
This was a good proposal back then.
It probably will happen. Didn't think we would be left out though.
Yea I think it still makes sense. Not sure what the harm is in expanding to 20 teams instead of 18 with 4 divisions.
How about:
Pacific:
- Oregon
- Washington
- Cal
- UCLA
- Stanford
West Central
- USC
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
- Minnesota
- Nebraska
East Central
- Purdue
- Indiana
- Michigan State
- Northwestern
- Illinois
East
- Penn State
- Rutgers
- Maryland
- Ohio State
- Michigan
Albeit - think it'd make a lot more sense to add WSU or Oregon State along with Stanford and cal and have 3 divisions of 7 teams. Wishful thinking. Feel bad for those guys.
This definitely will not be a permanent solution. ACC might dissolve in a few years so all the travel would be temporary while we get East Coast exposure, so I'm starting to like the idea.
This is a move to protect them from dissolving.
east coast recruiting...
N. Carolina (the state) is #3 is players in NFL.
California is tied at #1 with Florida.
I think you mean TX #1, CA/FL #2, NC #4 ;)
Hmm yeah I guess depends on which article you read.
The first one I read didn't have TX as #1, but another one from 2022 has TX #1, CA #2, FL #3, NC #4.. either way. same point that NC is surprisingly high on this list.
We've shown that we can get 5* and 4* guys out of North Carolina already. Need to keep the trend going.
one positive benefit of joining an "east" conference... those analyst at ESPN and east coast media may pay a little more attention.
it would be hilarious to think, cal & stanford lobbying ACC to take them.. saying we want to be part of ACC, we'll take anything, let's work it out, look at the all the benefits, it'll be an awesome arrangement, this can work..... while ACC tries to squeeze as much out of them.... then big 10 says "ok we'll take you for chump change" and then CAL & Stanford immediately saying YES.
4D chess ;)
Newellbany and I were talking about this yesterday - don’t think there’s any chance Cal and Stanford join the ACC. None of it makes sense…none.
But who benefits by dragging Cal and ‘Furd into this fantasy just so the ACC can pass on them? ESPN? I mean, most people can agree that the Bay Area schools to the Atlantic Coast Conference is patently absurd.
The current rush of conference realignment generally is patently absurd but it seems to flow in the direction of the dollars. If the ACC deal flows in that same direction, then Cal and Furd will follow
Sure, no arguments there…
But any movement by Cal and Stanford is predicated on the decision makers at those two schools…unfortunately, Stanford’s President is in hot water, and Carol Christ/Jim Knowlton/UC Regents are as inept as you can possibly get.
To pull off a move anything like this takes forward thinking, dynamic leadership, which neither Cal nor Stanford possess. This is largely responsible for the lack of success in the revenue sports by both schools the past 5 years and a huge reason why both schools were left behind multiple times already.
Does Gavin Newsom figure into impacting any of this? Don't think I've heard his name mentioned anywhere on the subject since the original UCLA controversy last year.
I mean, wouldn’t you think he should? His silence has been deafening throughout all these issues, and it’s costing the state big time.
Not to go political, as I’m a fan of Gavin’s, but he really does seem hyper-focused on his anti-Florida/anti-Texas ad campaign while the State of California is literally falling apart.
Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner lobbied to make sure that Virginia Tech got Syracuse's spot in the ACC's 2004-05 expansion. I wasn't a fan of that idea or of Mark Warner, nor am I a fan of Governor Newsom.
Agreed - the lack of leadership is what got us in this mess and will keep us there for the foreseeable future. But I would imagine dollars would make it easier to decide on the path forward (assuming they get over their ennui)
This is where you would hope the Regents and UC prez would give a shit and be bold but they too are useless…
It seems like a way to get leverage with the Big Ten, but who knows!
Perhaps. I hear ya, O.O, but, man, there really is no getting leverage with the B1G, especially when the one thing they’ve been consistent on is a reluctance to expand to 20.
Hey, I’d love it if they joined the ACC - that would be awesome. I’m hopeful, just not confident.
What do you view as the likeliest outcome? Independence?
Honestly, I don’t know. The MWC is a non-starter - there’s not enough $ to survive. The Big 12 is not a cultural fit for either school. My hope is of course the B1G, but not sure it’s viable right now. Stanford could go Independent but I think we would struggle.
You all know I’m unabashedly critical/cynical when it comes to Cal sports in the post-Sandy Barbour era…I never had any faith in Williams or Knowlton because this Cal job is unlike most AD gigs…and this leadership vacuum terrifies me.
If you can cobble together an SMU to go with the Bay Area’s, then maybe the ACC can work, regardless of how ludicrous it sounds!
Seems like the best of a series of bad options, if the Big 12 is out and the Big Ten is not answering our calls. Maybe we can borrow a few Falcon Heavies from Elon to help with the travel?
If the Big 12, B1G, and SEC are no-gos this appears to be the only option that would allow us to pay off the stadium debt and keep all our nonrevenue sports. I assume we're still talking to the other 3 big leagues even if the prospect of the talk leading to action is remote at the moment.
The Regents are a feckless bunch …
I think the big hurdle might be the ACC fans themselves. Read some of the threads; they are not onboard with this; they need convincing. Totally a different situation than with the B1G and Big 12 dumbos enthusiastic support of poaching the Pac.
I don't think a three school add makes much sense for the ACC. If they are going to go that route, it needs to be a bigger, bolder grab (e.g., Cal, Stanfurd, SDSU, SMU, Tulane, and Connecticut...or maybe Cal, Stanfurd, Wazzu, Oregon State, SDSU, UNR, UNLV, Boise State, SMU and Tulane in some kind of western pod). This would ease the travel burden a bit for the western schools (sans Connecticut). The flipside is that the realized travel burden is really not all that bad for the ACC schools if it is only Cal and Stanford, but gets worse for the existing schools as more schools from the south and southwest are added.
And, of course, this all depends on the media G*ds/devils and whether they see any value here. It's a risk because some individual success is required for each school to raise its valuation, but not everybody can win.
The fans are the least important people when it comes to conference realignment and their opinions do not matter.
Less important than the student athletes? I think that would be a close one.
So you are saying all the discussion on W4C is not necessary. (T_T)
I have ways viewed this as group therapy.
Unless they don't show up!!!
As a Virginia fan, I'm going to have to disagree with your sentiment. This may actually be a brilliant move on the ACC's part and here's why:
Cal and Stanford would likely take reduced payouts to start and SMU has stated that they could forego conference distributions at first because they desperately want to get into a power conference and have wealthy donors who would support them. When they were in the SWC, SMU played home games at the Cotton Bowl and Texas Stadium; if their level of competition goes up, their current facility is too small. They can call up Jerry Jones and split the gate for a larger venue where they can charge more per ticket for amenities and strength of opponent.
Adding the three teams gets the ACC to a potentially awkward 17 teams in football, but remember that Notre Dame is a member for all other sports and that they would have to join the ACC if they forego independence or they may be subject to a significant buyout. Why does this matter? The Big Ten schools are already throwing around the idea of playing 10 conference games. If the ACC expands, they would have to go to 9 or 10 games. More conference games means fewer opportunities for Notre Dame to schedule quality opponents which hurts the two facets their independence relies on: their television money (NBC isn't paying to show Notre Dame play Marshall, Wyoming, and Army; they want Michigan, USC, and Stanford) and their access to the playoff (a weak schedule could keep them out, even with six or seven at-large spots up for grabs). Notre Dame seriously has to consider being the 18th school in ACC football under this scenario.
You make a great argument for SMU and ND. Perhaps an argument for the ACC even. I read nothing compelling for either Cal or 'furd.
Survival, though handicapped by travel.
Basic survival is the only argument for a reduced rate acceptance to the ACC, and even that is weak, IMHO.
Thanks, and welcome.
How familiar are you with the TV rights deal? As I understand it, if FSU and Clemson leave, they forfeit their TV rights, losing $40M per year each. But if they went to the SEC, they would make it more valuable, and ESPN might think it's worth it to support them in the SEC (would you rather sell ads for a Bama-FSU game or a Bama-Vandy game on a saturday afternoon?), leaving the forfeited cash to be split among the remaining 12 schools. Further assume that Cal and Stanford accept $30M instead of 40, and there is an extra $8.5M per year for the existing schools.
I don't know if this is reasonable or possible given the existing contracts, but the concept of selling FSU/Clemson, buying Cal/Stanford, and pocketing the difference might be appealing.
The buyout is around $120 mil upfront, and THEN the annual tv rights through 2036.
Thanks for the insight. Go Cavs.
You're right on. If one checks out the ACC fan sites, one sees a lot of hostility to adding Stanford and Cal. The fans of FSU, Miami and Clemson are especially opposed. One suggested that Standford and Cal only be added if the ACC can reduce the term of the GORs so teams can bail out early.
IMO, this is a brilliant move by the ACC. It gives them games in the PST to sale, it protects the conference from collapsing and it brings in a ND rival in Stanford.
Adding that many schools will make us completely a separate group within the ACC. They will just think of us as a bunch of lowly guys who are borrowing the name ACC but not really part of them.
It's not exciting either. I want Cal to play teams like Duke or Clemson, not MW schools.
Fair point.
As a Miami fan, I'd welcome having Stanford and Cal join. Can rebrand as the American Coastal Conference.
Ultimately what needs to happen is ACC schools to be on the same page in disbanding the current conference and starting a new one so they can get CBS and ESPN to bid on a new TV deal. Same with Prime and AppleTV.
Lastly the conference should agree on a tiered revenue model. Top 2 teams per division would earn a bigger annual payout.
Doing so appeases the disgruntled teams, keeps everyone together, and solidifies the new ACC as a Top 3 conference going forward.
My move would be the following
South
Miami
FSU
NC State
GTech
SMU
East
Clemson
UNC
Virginia
VTech
Duke
North
Notre Dame
Pitt
Louisville
BC
Syracuse
West
Stanford
Cal
Oregon St
Wash St
SDSU or perhaps lure Arizona St back if possible
And the MWC buyout is an issue for any of those schools...
This is scary: the UC Board of Regents "offered Chancellor Christ full support as she and her leadership team pursue their options." Holy shit, talk about out of touch. Also, now we have Michael Drake vouching for The Clueless One and her sidekick, The Empty Suit. These three stooges are our champions!!! Cal is screwed and doomed.
Cal’s inept leadership is largely responsible for this mess.
Soooooo very true
Yeah it's time (or beyond time) to bring in a new AD with strong ties to our target conferences and who embraces the modern landscape.
The Three Stooges (Daffy Duck, Clueless Carol, and Empty Suit Jim) will probably endorse Larry Scott for the position.
What's Larry doing nowadays? Counting his bills while laying on silk sheets doing pure cocaine off of a platinum tennis racket? The fact that those guys (and their cronies) got rich while destroying the Pac now seems criminal.
Larry certainly screwed up big time for many years, but blame the Pac12 Presidents for their incompetence for not managing Larry out more timely (and instead doubled down on extending Larry).
Also, didn't we all celebrate Larry's "visionary" Pac12 network to expand interests and TV programming into our Olympic sports? It was a stupid gamble in hindsight, but I remember thinking, Pac12 is doing something different and I like it! (Then the whole thing actually rolled out with tons of issues... like lack of Direct TV... womp womp)
Something different? Wasn't there a MWC Network, a B1G network, etc. before this all went down? Or was it that we had ownership over it in a way that the others did not. The Pac-12 network made it damned hard to watch games. Limited distribution and spotty, sometimes, based on regional channel broadcasts. Even if your package had the Pac-12 Network, you might not have the channel you needed. It was/is a disaster for any fans outside of California.
Larry was just way too stubborn and wouldn't bring his price down for the P12 Network so it could get on more carriers. What good is owning a network if people can't watch it?
And I think the preexisting conference networks were part of the reason DirecTV passed. They were already stretched out and did not think the viewership warranted the price (and they were correct).
Larry initially looked promising after years of the utterly inept Tom Hansen presiding over the conference.
But the P12’s arrogance in continuously hiring Commissioners with zero experience in collegiate athletics is responsible for this disaster.
Yeah, those first 2-3 years of Scott were promising and exciting and then it all fell apart because Scott had to chase his White Whale, the Pac12 Network.
Dude picked up over $50 million in salary during his tenure. How does that happen?
Dude should be in jail for fraud.
Accurate supposition and conclusion
rumor from a Clemson blogger that Carolina is also a No vote, so we can't lose anymore.
Muck Fack Brown
still lobbying against Cal...
we were soooooo close to the Rose Bowl :(
afraid again mack?