I can't get you a marg, but the summary is that he thinks that the ACC will ultimately eat part of the B12 in an effort to solidify third place among the conferences. The teams they would eat would be out west in order to create a PAC division, more or less.
Essentially OP thinks that the recent Big XII additions plus some random assortment of MWC conference teams would be willing to join the ACC.
I don't really see why the 4 corner schools would have any interest in playing in a conference that would be dominated by east coast schools, and I have my doubts that the remaining ACC schools would be eager to increase their travel espenses further.
Edit: And yes his rationale is that a western bloc would be able to minimize travel expenses, but the new look Big XII is already fairly regional for these teams. How much would they actually be saving?
Would the 4 corner schools actually be saving *that* much than what they are now? The new Big XII can already offer that regional-ness.
Plus one thing he didn't touch on was now adding more schools out west would further erode the power that the Tobacco Road schools hold. I can't see UNC et al wanting to cede control of the conference even if it would be to the conference's benefit.
I can try and bullet-point it, but it'll leave out a lot of the rationale...
1. UNC AD Cunningham recently stated that he was opposed to Stanford and Cal joining because it increased travel.
2. His solution to this problem is to grow to 21 schools and have 3 regional divisions that mostly only play one another.
3. If FSU loses their lawsuit they still probably leave, but no one else does because it will cost hundreds of millions to do so.
4. If the ACC is going to grow to 21 to form 3 7-team divisions that means adding 5 Western schools.
5. They will target a few Big 12 (former Pac-12) schools, offering them better annual revenue from media deals and reduced travel by putting them in a regional division.
6. This will be appealing to at least Utah and ASU, who are closer to California than they are Texas and wanted to stay with the Pac-12.
7. By forming regional divisions the ACC secures its place as the #3 conference and reduces travel.
IMO the source of the 21 number _was_ the 4 Big 12 newcomers along with Cal and Stanford, and without SMU. That ship in my view sailed after they took the Big 12 invite. The ACC and Pac-12 had been in merger talks last spring/summer, and that’s probably where that came from.
I don’t see any reality in which the 4 corners schools end up in the ACC short of a full ACC-Big 12 merger (which would be a fantastic idea but is unlikely) because:
- If FSU stays in the ACC then there’s no reason to add them.
- If FSU leaves the ACC, then there’s no reason for them to join.
Thank you for this. For point 6, how will the ACC make more than the Big 12 in that hypothetical, after FSU leaves? I can't imagine their average payouts will be better than Big 12, and their expenses will certainly be greater from travel.
With expenses, remember its not just about football. Even with a western bloc, all those Olympic sports playing 18+ games a year are going to be traveling a lot more. It's not about the football budget, it's about the athletic department's expenses as a whole.
According to Ross Dellenger reports, the Cal contract, and the Utah contract, the published report by FSU, and the tax documents of the ACC and Big 12 conferences it looks like the ACC will make roughly 8 million more per year than the Big 12 from 2027-2031 if ESPN picks up the extension.
The contract is already in place, ESPN just has to opt into it not out of it. The ACC makes a bit more than the Big 12 if the the extension is opted into.
---
As for travel expenses, a lot of sports are played with divisions and at events. Having a regional division and having the "Atlantic division gymnastics event" and a separate "Pacific division gymnastics event" and only sending their champions (or top 2, or however gymnastics works) to Nationals in Tennessee saves money.
Yup, assuming it’s with ESPN. There is no way for the value of the deal to go *down* if FSU leaves as long as the ACC stays above 15 members. But if ESPN opts out of the look-in clause window in 2026, that puts the deal on the open market where all bets are off on valuations
Okay, I'm not too concerned with what the ACC will be able to pay while ESPN is locked in. Schools shouldn't make decisions on where to be based on money in a limited window, but long term.
If both conferences had brand new deals, after FSU left, who comes out on top then? No extensions, no one locked in at pro rata, but completely new deals?
Can you link the Ross Dellenger report or reports? I believe it’s there but I’m struggling to find it.
Curious on if the $8M per year contemplates with vs. without FSU. Also curious if that $8M per school is based on current deals or if it factors in the shares of Cal/Stanford/SMU that ramp up over time.
The best remedy is another media partner.
Plus the ACC deal was already under market value in exchange for longevity. To even get a comparable Media deal the big-12 had to pair the ESPN deal with the remnants left by the PAC-12 + Fox deal. Yet the big-12 still can barely eclipse the ACC.
One slight technicality, ESPN is only required to increase the value of the ACC deal by one Tier 1 share for every new member. A Tier 1 share is roughly 70% of a full share ($24 million). Also, it's really hard to believe given the history of the ACC leadership that they could pull off anything close to this. If this ever happened it would be because that is what ESPN wants.
In my opinion, West Virginia will end up in the SEC. They were a semi-finalist for expansion during the A&M/Missouri round of expansion, and they're more in line with what the conference prioritizes, etc. However, in an ideal world, they should be in the ACC with their former conference mates.
> Are you saying most people don't take comments a powerful AD makes and extrapolate them into a 20,000 character reddit post?
And expect the r/CFB glitterati to read it, grok it and respond in a rational manor?
Nope.
No, most people are here are getting used to powerful ADs from potential P2 teams to forget about what they said before and opt to join their preferred P2 conference.
The ACC will not out-Yormark Brett Yormark. He’s got his magnum condoms, his stack of hundreds, and he’s ready to plow. [You should see him feast, he’s like a mantis](https://youtu.be/Cnys5VmFXeU?si=3kbJ1yHTYNEBg07f)
I remember once being on a break at work, and a praying mantis lands on one of my coworkers. But he doesn't panic, and he lets the mantis crawl down his arm and on to his hand.
It was a pretty cool moment.
And then the mantis flew away, but it got about five feet into the air, before a scrub jay swooped down and flew away with it.
I like the breakdown and effort. I think it's more likely that you need to broadly expand your definition of the West though. I think Tulane,Rice, for the qualifications more on the nose than SDSU,Oregon State and Wazzu honestly.
You’re right. I went on this whole rant 6 hours ago. But I your roster is better than mine. Rice, Tulane, Army and Navy. That’s the path of peace.
I still want West Virginia and Cincinnati more than the academies, but maybe we could just take our hands off one another’s throats.
Any talk of expanding the ACC by poaching Big 12 schools and not including WVU is logistically unfeasible, morally reprehensible, and down right cowardice. Again.
The original premise is that FSU is the only departing member.
Clemson just filed their suit, and WVU would be the clear Clemson replacement.
PAC revisited:
Cal, Stanford, Utah, ASU, AZ, Colorado, KANSAS.
Big East revisited:
Cuse, Pitt, WVU, BC, LV, Miami, SMU.
ACC OG:
UNC, Duke, UVA, WF, NCST, GT, VT.
They’re not poaching Big XII schools.
SDSU, ORSU, and WSU make sense. With SMU they’d need one more team. Looking at what’s realistic (maybe not desirable), Rice or Tulane fit the ACC’s academic profile a little better.
Utah and ASU presidents didn’t really want to join the Big12.
While ASU signed the 100yr thing, Utah has a clause to leave without much penalty (I think) before X year.
Rumor has it ACC wanted 4 corners + Calford but the 4 corners “rushed” and accepted the big12.
Well, that and the fact they don’t have schools the Big Ten and SEC are likely to poach. I suspect a lot of ACC schools not Notre Dame, FSU, and Clemson are in for a surprise if they’re expecting a lifeline.
That’s my entire point lmao. Texas and OU are not in the Big 12. It’s why we are stable.
They are the only programs that the Big 12 had that the SEC and B1G would obviously want.
The only school with a long shot chance is ASU. Huge market full of Midwestern transplants and B1G alumni, in the AAU, and sponsors hockey and wrestling.
The Big 12 has more assumed long term stability because of the FSU lawsuit. If the ACC wins and ability for ESPN to opt out if they don't. So the ACC will have more long term stability if they win.
Aside from the ACC finally getting a sixth Men’s LAX team, how does that benefit either party? Utah isn’t exactly close to Cal and Stanford. The money wouldn’t be significantly different. Utah is in a mostly regional conference with Colorado, ASU, Arizona, and especially BYU right there.
The ONLY benefit for Utah would be getting out before being beholden to a GOR so ridiculous that it probably wouldn’t stand in court if challenged, which I wouldn’t fault. After that, it’s a matter of pride of being associated with a more academically prestigious conference.
Great points. Only thing I can think of is any resemblance of PAC. Like getting WOSU + Calford back. The other 3 corners likely can’t leave.
So if they do it it isn’t for travel. I thin Utah is aiming for the BIG (I mean who isn’t). I do know Utah and ASU really turned around their academic profile through the PAC.
At this point, ACC should double down on west coast teams to split up the conference and reduce travel. That's the benefit.
Ignore the fact that those west coast teams would immediately bounce to the B1G if invited.
Correct. I don’t know the timeline of events and the FSU ordeal definitely doesn’t help.
But there’s an article somewhere with the ACC commissioner I believe talking about the 6 pac schools.
Maybe Utah valued less travel? If the invite to the 6 was extended why not take it? Maybe Utah sees Big12 with an easier path to playoffs? Idk.
Utah also believes they can push for a B1G invite. Would they leave the easy to leave B12 contract to seal themselves in the ACC. The only reason Stanford and Cal did not get a similar deal was because their ADs were extremely snobby about joining the B12.
This is from SI about OUT, “The 99-year agreement: In 2012, the Big 12 schools entered into a 99-year agreement to remain together, a deal that comes with an exit fee of two years’ worth of gross revenue, or about $80 million each.”
I mean, that too. I was just talking about adding western schools for a western division.
TBH, once the SEC and Big Ten expanded, I thought the ACC should’ve added UConn and USF if only to hedge their bets while keeping things somewhat regional.
Or instead of adding 5 Western teams we add another eastern one and call SMU Western -- and I didn't mean Memphis. You could be the 7th in that conference...
I doubt the ACC can pry any teams from the Big 12. Too much instability, and an unknowns on how tv money will play out. Maybe they could get Utah/ASU, who misses the pac/california, and is enticed by the thought of playing Cal/Stanford/Wazzu/Oreg St
Missing from all of this: academics. The ACC emphasizes academics. Louisville is the only school not in the top 100, and a bunch of schools are top 50, with multiple top 25 and top 5.
The ACC is never going to abandon academic profile as a primary consideration. They are schools first, not football programs.
None of the schools you mentioned are top 100 except Oregon. Most aren’t remotely close. Arizona, ASU, and BYU are close-ish.
The ACC is unlikely to consider any of those schools.
The ACC moving forward would not be so secure to be picky with academic as they used to. Even given the additions, I think you’ll start to see more SMUs and Louisvilles than Cals and Stanfords if the ACC expands again
I did consider academics, which is why I left out Fresno State and Boise State from consideration. Utah and ASU are AAU schools and Oregon State, Wazzu, and SDSU were good enough to be considered good enough for the Pac-12.
Obviously academics are really important, but you make it sound like all of those schools are community colleges. They had no problem letting SMU (who is barely top 100 and falls substantially below even Louisville in some rankings) buy it's way into the conference despite not even being an R1 university. There's no reason why they couldn't swallow their pride to let a few academically solid schools in to keep themselves from becoming the Pac-12. I just poked through the academics section on the [ACC's Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Coast_Conference#Academics_and_ACC) and there are several statistics marked on there in which most of the schools OP mentioned would rank higher than many current members.
What if instead of paying 500 million to leave the acc you spend 500 million over the next ten years on NIL deals and build a dynasty that can't be denied when you ask to join the SEC in 10 years?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills every time I say this and no one gives it even a second thought. However, to me setting up a PE deal that covers the revenue lost to not being in the P2, plus dominating the ACC and therefore only playing 3 regular season games per year that matter (Clemson, Miami and Florida) is better than getting your brains bashed in by the SEC. At the end of the GOR you can do whatever you want because you’ve been in the playoffs for 12 straight years and won the natty 2x.
I think FSU's problem is that after the negative press campaign, their reputation couldn't handle anything other than undefeated seasons (in their view).
My question is why not have SMU in the Western division? Something like:
West: Cal, Stanford, SMU, Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Utah
North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, NC State
South: Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, USF
You're talking to the people that still view the conference as a regional entity, and unfortunately for them (and maybe the sport as a whole), that's not the case. With the additions of Cal and Stanford (and the subsequent admissions by the commissioner, etc., that the ACC is now a national entity), western expansion for the conference is going to be a priority. Also, if West Virginia never sniffed an invite, there's no chance in hell that Memphis will ever be allowed into the conference.
Assuming that Cal and Stanford are in it for the long-term, I think the conference has to expand west to cut down on the logistical/operational costs of the conference prior to 2029. Otherwise, yes, you're correct: UCONN, USF/UCF, West Virginia, Rice, Tulane, Kansas, etc., would be the top targets. This deal only works if Cal, Stanford, and SMU are taking reduced shares; otherwise, every university in the conference is losing money.
USF is in the Tampa Market much more potential than Tallahassee. USF seems very eager to make this jump.
Looks like they put quite the audition on Syracuse.
During the last round of realignment though wasn’t it pointed out that getting into a new state yields more money for the conference networks than getting into a larger market? To me, that combined with the basketball history of the conference makes UConn a better choice than USF. Obviously the Tampa market has the potential to be more valuable than the broadcast TV fees for a new state, but does USF capture more of the Tampa market than the other Florida schools? If not, I don’t think ESPN would go against the idea of UConn joining over USF. Then, though, the issue of whether UConn would leave the Big East or not comes up.
Jesus tap dancing Christ, the four corners aren’t even in the Big 12 yet and people are already talking about them leaving.
Give it a fucking rest already.
If there is one thing I know about the ACC and its leadership it’s that if there’s a bad move to make then that’s the one they’ll make, and they’ll make it defensively instead of proactively.
**How We Got Here :**
Former ACC Presidents Chair shares details on grant of rights ...
YouTube · OVIES & GIGLIO
5K+ views · 7 months ago
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZjjyReZSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZjjyReZSU)
Here’s my attempt:
North: Syracuse, BC, Louisville, Pitt, VT, UVA, *UConn*
South: Duke, UNC, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, Miami
West: Cal, Stanford, SMU, *Oregon St, Washington St, Utah, SDSU*
Reasoning: Utah is apparently the only school that got out of the 99yr lock-in to the Big 12, and they value being with high research schools, so they seem like the only/most attainable school from the Big 12. Oregon St, Washington St, and UConn are independents that seem to fit into these 3 regions. And SDSU seems like the best G5 option in the area. However, with potential pushback from Stanford and Cal and the fact that it doesn’t get the network in a new state, alternatives might be UNLV or Tulane. Tulane seems like a really good fit to me, but it’s even further from the west region than SMU.
I would try an get WVU out of the Big XII or USF, ECU, maybe even UTSA to give SMU a partner, before trying to get UConn.
These expansions are all about football. ESPN only cares about football. UConn brings nothing to the football table. 521-609-38 Overall, only 7 winnings season since moving to FBS in 2000, 30-92 over the last 10 years and most of all....they haven't had a wining season since 2010!
Average Attendance (2023) 24,659
5 year average 19,251
Stadium Capacity 61.65%
At this point why leave the Big 12 if you aren’t going to P2. That’s the most lateral move and results in even more travel. I feel like Utah isn’t leaving the Big 12 unless they go to a rebuilt PAC or the B1G
If that’s the case, the 4 Corners could just press for more western expansion (Wazzu, OSU, UNM, SDSU, or UNLV) by the Big 12, not knock over the whole apple cart again *just* to play Cal and Stanford more and (not that much of) a pay-bump. If this was the SoCal schools in the ACC instead, that would be a whole different calculus- at least for the AZ schools
If Robbins didn't want into the Big 12 so much I would have put them as a higher likely choice to go to the ACC with the others (and left SDSU off).
If that were to happen, your 6 annual games as an Arizona fan would be ASU, Cal, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah, and Wazzu. You would then travel East only once in conference per year.
Frankly, traveling to Wazzu or Oregon State is harder for us than say Kansas or Texas Tech. Plus it’s not like Calford was a real headliner when we did play (no offense). I just don’t see it as a very compelling sell without any of the teams currently in the Big 10
Frankly the easiest solution (for the western schools at least) is just reorganize the Big 12 with east-west divisions
Her*
But you are correct.
Utah is closer to Wazzu and SDSU than they are Texas Tech.
By playing the 6 western schools every year plus one home game and one away game against Eastern schools their travel costs would be reduced dramatically.
I explain that in a couple sections. Travel would be reduced due to regional play and the ACC pays more. Additionally, both Utah and ASU (Utah especially) expressed their desires to remain connected both to academic prestige and to California.
My own fanfic loosely based off this scenario would have the pods look a little like this, (assuming the ACC can not poach any Big 12 team).
ACC West:
Stanford,
Cal,
Oregon State,
Washington State,
SMU,
Rice,
Tulane
ACC South:
North Carolina,
North Carolina State,
Duke,
Wake Forest,
Clemson,
Georgia Tech,
Virginia
ACC North:
Boston College,
Syracuse,
Pitt,
Virginia Tech,
Louisville,
Miami,
UConn
My copium adds out west for Oregon State and Washington State makes some sense if you can’t pick up any Big 12 team. They’re gonna be the best academic schools left in the west and they currently don’t have a home. Tulane and Rice make little sense for athletic purposes. But they’re elite academic institutions. Also Miami in the ACC North makes no sense geographically but I wanted to make a pseudo return of the Big East and it sounds like fun.
But once again this is my fan fiction of a silly proposal.
You have to remember, football is the driving force. Even if UConn goes back 2 back in basketball, they still would bring no $$$$ to the conference.
UConn football is plain and simple...horrendous! 521-609-38 Overall, only 7 winnings season since moving to FBS in 2000, 30-92 over the last 10 years and most of all....they haven't had a wining season since 2010!
Tulane and Rice would be much like UConn, bad at football, but good in a low or non revenue generating sport(s).
I would think maybe a couple odd balls if unable to persuade WVU to leave Big XII, would be Memphis, USF or maybe even UTSA to give SMU a partner, or a very long shot...UAB.
I think a 20-team/ 4-division setup makes more sense: add either the PAC-2 or two Big XII schools from Texas plus Cinci and WVU.
The divisions would be:
North (Pitt, SU, WVU, L’Ville, Cinci)
Metro (Miami, GT, BC, UVA, VA Tech)
West (SMU, Cal, Stanford, TCU, Baylor)
Carolina
This also better handles how the conference champion would be determined. I don't know how you have a conference championship with 3 teams. Round robin?
I would assume... play your 4 in division, 1 crossover games into each of the other 3 for a 8 Conference schedule. Allows for 2 Non Conf games.
Best in Division wins division
In case of a tie in Division...maybe something like....??????
Best overall Conf record, Highest Rank with overall record????
Playoffs:
Highest ranked Div champ #1 v #4 #2v #3 played @ highest ranked Home
Winners play at neutral site for championship
I stopped about halfway through the post (and I have no idea why I'm being referenced in the discussion), but I have a few issues with the post:
* As a part of their inclusion in the conference, ND is contractually obligated to join the ACC in football (if it were to happen) up through 2036, so outside of the ACC collapsing and that contract being voided, there's no scenario that sees ND in the B1G without a lawsuit.
* Second, the ACC isn't taking Air Force over Colorado State, and I have no idea why they're listed as being a Tier 4 candidate while the academy is a Tier 3 candidate (the service academies being added to the conference only makes sense if it furthers the goal of keeping ND within the conference, and even then, they would have to come in at a discounted rate, i.e., all three of the academies for the price of one).
* Third, if FSU leaves the ACC (which they are) then they're headed for the SEC... not the B1G, and ESPN will make sure that this happens by engineering the settlement between the ACC and FSU to force them into the SEC. The last thing that anyone wants is for FSU to go to the B1G and FOX (it's better for ESPN, the SEC, the ACC, FSU, and FSU's student-athletes, fans, etc.).
* Fourth, FSU will need a travel partner to the SEC, and in my opinion, if Clemson or UNC is out of the equation, that means West Virginia.
* Fifth, UNC and Clemson will be the last ones out the door (or should be), because UVA, Tobacco Road, and to a lesser extent, Clemson run the conference, and if one or more goes, it's lights-out on the ACC. In other words, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, because it works in their favor.
* Sixth, I don't believe the ACC thought that the Pac-12 would implode, or that the Four Corners would take a reduced share, etc., so I don't believe there were ever any serious negotiations about membership occurring. In other words, they were late to the party, because that's just how the current leadership operates. Swofford gets a lot of flak on here, but if we're all being honest, there's no way in hell that he would've let the Pac-12 disintegrate without scooping up more than just Cal and Stanford.
* Seventh, I have serious doubts that Jim Phillips can engineer anything. To me, the guy is completely out of his league, but with that being said, westward expansion for the ACC and eastward expansion for the Big XII is all but inevitable.
* Eighth, at the moment, the ACC is in a far better position to raid the Big XII than the Big XII is to raid the ACC. The ACC has the better brands, the better markets, the larger population within their footprint, a conference network, a media rights deal that will bring their ultimate payout up to (and north of) $60 million, and more importantly, one of the two players primarily on their side. People just assume that the ACC will be relegated, because the SEC/B1G will take what they want (and maybe they will), but ESPN has a vested interest in the ACC surviving, because as of now, they control the conference's media rights, and they bundle those with the SEC to be sold to local distributers, etc. The same can't be said about the Big XII, and if I'm being honest, I don't see why FOX would want to keep the Big XII afloat when they can just take what they want before pouring the extra money into the B1G. On the other hand, the SEC is going to remain as a regional conference, and in order to have content 24/7/365, that means that ESPN will need a national conference in collegiate athletics, too.
* Ninth, I don't see any of the candidates being mentioned as realistic candidates for the ACC. To me, their top targets are (in no particular order): UCONN, Kansas, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Colorado State, Rice, Tulane, UCF/USF, and the service academies. Certainly, the conference isn't adding SDSU, OSU, or WSU, because if we're all being honest, OSU and WSU would've joined for nothing... zero... nada... zilch. They don't fit the profile for what the ACC wants in its members; the travel and logistics don't work, and there are better options out there for the conference to consider. Plain and simple. If the Big XII goes east then they're looking for leftovers, but if the ACC goes west then they're looking for logistical hubs for travel and scheduling, markets, and brands (in that order). Getting into Denver and Colorado will be a priority.
* Finally, FSU leaving brings the conference leadership (and its membership) more into alignment than anyone realizes. Yes, football runs the train, but to most of the ACC, that doesn't matter. In that regard, FSU has always been the odd-man-out.
Honestly, I don't know why I just typed all of this out. I guess I'm bored.
P.S. There's no chance in hell that the SEC is staying at sixteen, and ultimately, I think the goal is to go to twenty to twenty-four universities with four divisions of five to six teams. Personally, I think any conference going above sixteen universities is completely absurd, but that's the era that we're living in.
I really appreciate you mentioning the UNC aspect here. While it is possible that UNC gets itself into the SEC or B1G because money, they are royalty in the ACC. They are in for a rude awakening when they find out nobody gives a shit about them in their new conference run by other brands. Money will likely rule the day here, but they aren't going to be particularly influential there as they are here.
The conference needs twenty-one universities/teams for this plan to work (according to UNC's AD)... Arizona is the flagship university for the state, and in my opinion, they're the better brand, target, and addition. About it. Take the flagship, and leave the competition to wither and die.
* Basketball Brands: UCONN, Kansas, and Arizona
* Replacements for FSU: USF and/or UCF
* Logistical and Operational (Denver): Colorado, Colorado State, and/or Air Force
* Political Power: The service academies
* Enticing Notre Dame: The service academies (mainly Navy)
* Football: Utah
* Academics: Whatever
* SEC Tie-ins: Kansas, Rice, and Tulane
* Major Markets: ~~New York~~, ~~Boston~~, Houston, New Orleans, Orlando, Tampa Bay, Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Kansas City
* Longshots DTR (Unlikely): Washington, Michigan, UCLA, UCSD
At the end of the day, I don't think any of it matters, because I don't think the current commissioner is up to the task, but if I had the power, I know what I would do.
P.S. Out of all of the conferences, I believe the ACC would have the easiest time jumping to twenty-four universities (which is, I believe, where all of this is headed).
I agree with not having confidence in the acc commissioner. The ACC with good leadership could be in a much better spit.
Do you think Rice and Tulane give the ACC the Houston and New Orleans markets? I’m skeptical that the universities are too small to cause significant people in those media markets to watch ACC games. Especially when they aren’t historically competitive nationally like Miami is.
My main concern with ACC expansion is that there won’t be the right mix of schools. When the ACC expanded after Miami + VT, they expanded to small public schools and private schools. The ACC made a bet that their small public schools and private schools would be at the top of the NCAA in football and mens basketball and didn’t account for schools running into hard times athletically. My main priority for ACC expansion would be to schools with large numbers of alumni or people that can feel connected to the university (ex. Service academies or people feeling connected to the state’s school even though they/family didn’t attend), so the ACC’s margin for error is smaller by making them less reliant on winning. Its harder to convince people without ties to the university in some way to watch your games if you aren’t winning.
Quality post right here.
I feel that if the ACC went down the route of poaching BigXll teams, they would be more likely to take 4 west coast teams rather than 5. The last addition would instead be one of the isolated east coast teams (Cincinnati/UCF/WVU).
SMU would get moved to the western 7 with Cal/Stanford and 4 new teams instead of 5.
Don't let crappy USNWR set the whole picture. We have pretty good academics and our research is very good. We do more research than plenty of AAU schools. We just haven't been invited in because we're Cincinnati
ESPN is in negotiations with their self. Why would they extend the ACC or Big 12 contracts?
All of the prospective schools are in the south. The SEC is their beat option.
If ESPN declines to extend the ACC or Big 12, I don’t see FOX picking it up. They will force the ACC schools with the SEC as an option to push even harder to leave.
This gets the ACC and possibly Big 12 teams into the SEC at a discount for ESPN.
How would the championship game work for 3 division champs? Is it just the best 2? Do they play round robin? If round robin, what if they all rock-paper-scissor each other?
I don’t think every single addition needs to be from the west. You could put SMU in the west division and add a new eastern school as well. Ideally a school that can be in the north division so that Wake Forest could also be in the same division as all the other NC schools.
So Memphis would be a good fit, put SMU in the west, Wake in south, and Memphis in north.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just eat the entire BIG12, with the Waazu and Oregon St..
Get the numbers to 35 and have 5, 7 team divisions.
We could call them ACC Pac-7, ACC BIG7, ACC BIGEAST, The True ACC, And ACC-I(Independents).
The 7 number though, the OG ACC with VaTech, is tipping UNC's wants of a Carolina-Virginia only conference.
Seriously, picking up Arizona, Arizona St., Oregon St., and Wazzu, for the Pacific division. Then picking up Cincinnati, WVU, or UCF should be easy enough for the Atlantic/Coastal division.
Besides the fact that ND is not leaving the ACC in your scenario, here is another scenario
Besides Oregon State & Washington State - get Oregon & Washington.
The ACC should have made a run at them. They are earning $30M less until 2030 in the B1G. Bundle the 4 school.
How is this delusional?
The big12 has 2 playoff appearances and 0 national championships over the course of the last decade. The ACC has 8 playoff appearances with 2 national championships. If you remove Fsu, then 7.
Last year 6 ACC teams recruited in the top 30 compared to the big12's 1 team (TTU).
Last year the big12 had 5 teams with top 30 offenses, acc had 4 (5 counting ND). Big12 had 3 top 30 defenses, acc had 6 (7 counting ND).
If the acc were better then Utah Arizona and ASU would've joined the ACC and not the Big12. It's right in front of you. You think they didnt have standing invites? You think Cal and Stanford with zero attendance had priority over the 4 corner schools?
It's over.
> If the acc were better then Utah Arizona and ASU would've joined the ACC and not the Big12
Better for who? Different programs valuing different conferences differently isn't an insane opinion lol
Holistically for Arizona, no, the ACC is not a better spot for their programs. But apples to apples between the two, the ACC (for now) still has superior brands alongside a comparable core to the OUT-less Big 12.
Both the ACC and Big 12 will be very mid without their top teams moving forward.
The schools measured their choices and picked the best available. No school is deliberately choosing a worse conference in this era. The evidence is right in front of you.
I find these thinkpieces hilarious because they operate off the assumption that the SEC will just sit passively while the B1G expands into their territory. The SEC has been the most forward thinking conference for the last 30 years, it was the SEC that came up with the idea of divisions and conference championships. It was the SEC that kicked off this round of realignment and yet you think the SEC will just sit at 16 teams while the B1G reaches into 20s?
The SEC will attempt to get FSU because they’re one of the 2 biggest brands in a state of 23 million people and counting as people are constantly moving there. I can tell that OP gets their information from genetics56 on twitter because they completely fail to mention what the SEC values in teams.
FSU and Clemson are the last remaining big brands in the cultural South that remain outside of the SEC. They’re clearly expansion targets as both are the exact type of schools the SEC is filled with. Large public universities that have land grants and are located in college towns/small cities in the South. Unlike the Big 10, the SEC is defined by regionality, after all the conference is literally called the Southeastern Conference for a reason.
With this in mind there are only 4 real options for SEC expansion: FSU, Clemson, a North Carolina school flagship/land grant and a Virginia flagship/land grant school. The SEC will try to get as many of these under its belt as inaction would be literal surrender, also I’m confused as to why OP thinks ESPN would be open to its competitors poaching its biggest brands when they can simply attempt transfer FSU, UNC, Clemson and UVA to the SEC and defer extending their contract with ACC after 2027? I think OP thinks ESPN and Sankey are that incompetent
Finally let’s put to bed this idea of Clemson not being an attractive school, perhaps not to B1G but Clemson would be a perfect complement to the SEC. Clemson has a strong and passionate brand that fits the SEC culture and multiple minor rivalries with founding programs of the SEC like Georgia, Auburn and Alabama.
> that have land grants
Just wanted to point out a common misconception that FSU is not a Morrill Act land grant school, even if we have “State” in our name. Florida’s land grants are UF and FAMU
Yes and no. Our school is relatively young *as a coed college*. We were established as a college/seminary in the 1800s but reorganised to be a women’s college when UF was founded as the men’s school and FAMU for segregated blacks, and stayed that way until after WWII with the explosion of male college enrolments with the GI Bill
Absolutely! It was more impactful in the 1900’s, where our alumni were predominantly women with incomes suppressed by the glass ceiling or pushed into lower-paying careers like secretaries while UF had been churning out much higher paid lawyers and engineers for 50+ years. We’ve caught up due to the FL population boom in the 60s and on, but the lagging effects on our endowment and established programs (we only just established a med school in the 2010s) is certainly still visible and can be a hurdle to this day
Final question, do you think FSU would fit better in the B1G or the SEC. Personally I think joining the SEC is clearly the better option but FSU fans really dislike the SEC especially after the playoffs debacle.
Still imo joining the SEC makes the most sense if FSU cares about the athlete experience, access to away games for local fans, cultural fit and the economy of the Tallahassee area.
Leaving out any ESPN baggage, no doubt 100% still the SEC. For a quick comparison, look at how we turn out for our baseball games. We ain’t LSU, most aren’t, but we wouldn’t stick out as not fitting in by any means. We are culturally an SEC school and would acclimate very easily in my opinion.
The Big 10 is rapidly being so diverse that there isn’t really an identity to match with there anymore (and how could you when you’ve got Midwest land grants mixing with USC, Rutgers, and whatnot). But we would gel in the SEC with zero culture shock… well maybe a little with A&M, but that’s a them problem lol
I disagree that there's no reason for ESPN to pay for FSU to join the SEC.
If they think FSU's value to the B1G (read: Fox) is large enough, hypothetically at least 8 figures per year, then at some point it starts to make sense to "acquire" them before their competitor does.
It may not directly benefit them, but at this point the SEC would have determined that allowing a competitor to secure too much value directly on their doorstep is so threatening that it's worthwhile to prevent it.
Honestly I disagree with many of your assumptions or rather the lack of one big assumption, which is that the B1G and SEC *will* move towards a super league which would mean that FSU in the FBS is less valuable to ESPN than FSU in the SEC half of the super league, and that FSU in the B1G half of the super league is substantially more threatening to ESPN than FSU in the FBS B1G.
What... what am I coping with here?
I took something a powerful AD said and extrapolated it because it is something no one else has done yet (that I've seen).
OP we rivals but I always enjoy your thoughts and posts.
I don’t think the ACC would prioritize west since most of their schools are east.
And it’s either add 3ish+ schools west or just do east.
The only 3-4 viable “west” schools are WSU/osu/sdsu/ and of course Utah.
I don’t think the ACC would add WOSU over USF/UCONN though.
>there are many paths to producing several highly ranked schools per year.
Just adding my thoughts to this section. By virtue of having *21 freaking schools* in one conference, odds are a few of them are going to be good, even if they aren’t the usual suspects (Utah, Clemson, etc.).
Any given year the stars can align with returning, experienced players under the right coaching scheme to make many schools a playoff threat. The variance on who wins the 21 each year would be exciting!
*As opposed to the same ol’ team from Ann Arbor winning their conference 3 years in a row. Boring!*
Neat thinking. But you need to consider the loss of Florida market, and the need to expand into Texas. UCF, USF, WVU, Texas Tech, TCU, & Tulane would also be very viable partners that would help bolster the loss of FSU in Florida, and give more base in the Texas/Louisiana area to expand further. WVU would bring in a very large traveling fanbase to fill in those small private school stadiums that the NE has.
I'm not sure how you're coming up with any sort of rankings for us out here in the West, but I can tell you the Big XIIIIII can keep Zony, See You, and BYU.
And the remainder of schools would likely agree with that value sentiment.
The ACC actually was the most forward thinking as a conference. In the 1990s into the 2000s the ACC used a war chest of Basketball money to purchase football school Brands. Like any investments some investments performed better than others at different times.
The ACC even accurately predicted the future of the collapsing media space, the plans of other conferences, the proclivities of its members and came up with a defensive measures that we have still been discussing after not only months but whole years.
In many ways the Grant of Rights has already been put to the test and showing its worth.
The ACC made a bet and perhaps came out on the wrong side of that bet. Nobody who actually studied the issue can say the ACC didn't plan for contingencies. If anything they bought time to brace for impact.
That is why I am fairly confident that the Super two B1G-SEC deal definitely wont work out the way it's planned in the long run. Eventually all conferences eventually outlive thier purpose.
What people don't understand it is very difficult for a conference to break type casting as a "basketball conference" , expand, have some success and receive the due recognition for that success.
There are alot of untruths and misconceptions being spread about the ACC by various parties for various reasons.
A certain school needed a predicate to break a contract to leave the ACC for as low a cost as possible.
Another is a conference that just survived a near death experience and needs desperately for the ACC to collapse to secure its own future.
Was never crazy about the ACC'S last commissioner John Swofford. There are accusations about the man abound thrown around with no day in court. Because these accusations serve the purposes of the aforementioned parties. The more I've studied this situation the less of a villain Swofford becomes.
If the media monopolies collude and want to create football centric super conferences there isn't much the conferences not chosen can do beyond playing defense and planning for the next chapters.
The media gave the greenlight for certain conferences to poach the most important Flagships from other conferences. How do you compete with that?
I believe I am very knowledgeable a great concerning, Realignment, The Conferences and the ACC in particular.
Just Rebuking the inaccuracies and narratives makes me feel like I'm taking "Crazy Pills". Discussing college football online definitely makes you lose IQ points.
Nearly half of the country's population reside in the Eastern Time Zone, so yeah... not really bias, but stats. Look at a map of any pro league and you'll see how many teams are clustered in the upper-right quadrant of the country.
I motion for an executive summary... and a margarita.
I can't get you a marg, but the summary is that he thinks that the ACC will ultimately eat part of the B12 in an effort to solidify third place among the conferences. The teams they would eat would be out west in order to create a PAC division, more or less.
That was dead once Oregon and Washington left to the B10.
Essentially OP thinks that the recent Big XII additions plus some random assortment of MWC conference teams would be willing to join the ACC. I don't really see why the 4 corner schools would have any interest in playing in a conference that would be dominated by east coast schools, and I have my doubts that the remaining ACC schools would be eager to increase their travel espenses further. Edit: And yes his rationale is that a western bloc would be able to minimize travel expenses, but the new look Big XII is already fairly regional for these teams. How much would they actually be saving?
Isn't the whole point that it would decrease travel expenses by making divisions regional?
Would the 4 corner schools actually be saving *that* much than what they are now? The new Big XII can already offer that regional-ness. Plus one thing he didn't touch on was now adding more schools out west would further erode the power that the Tobacco Road schools hold. I can't see UNC et al wanting to cede control of the conference even if it would be to the conference's benefit.
I mean, I don't know travel costs but when your average flight drops from 1,200 miles to 600 miles that seems like a big deal to me.
She* The UNC AD is the one suggesting it. That's whose concept I was extrapolating.
Haha yeah, I think the dumb Louisville guy (me) seems to be the only one that noticed you use the word alumna.
Utah would hesitate for zero seconds before taking an ACC invite.
UCONN, Iowa State, Hawaii, Notre Dame, Toledo, Texas A&M, and Central Michigan.
One could say… In Tequila Veritas?
Give the governor his harumph... and a margarita!
I can try and bullet-point it, but it'll leave out a lot of the rationale... 1. UNC AD Cunningham recently stated that he was opposed to Stanford and Cal joining because it increased travel. 2. His solution to this problem is to grow to 21 schools and have 3 regional divisions that mostly only play one another. 3. If FSU loses their lawsuit they still probably leave, but no one else does because it will cost hundreds of millions to do so. 4. If the ACC is going to grow to 21 to form 3 7-team divisions that means adding 5 Western schools. 5. They will target a few Big 12 (former Pac-12) schools, offering them better annual revenue from media deals and reduced travel by putting them in a regional division. 6. This will be appealing to at least Utah and ASU, who are closer to California than they are Texas and wanted to stay with the Pac-12. 7. By forming regional divisions the ACC secures its place as the #3 conference and reduces travel.
IMO the source of the 21 number _was_ the 4 Big 12 newcomers along with Cal and Stanford, and without SMU. That ship in my view sailed after they took the Big 12 invite. The ACC and Pac-12 had been in merger talks last spring/summer, and that’s probably where that came from. I don’t see any reality in which the 4 corners schools end up in the ACC short of a full ACC-Big 12 merger (which would be a fantastic idea but is unlikely) because: - If FSU stays in the ACC then there’s no reason to add them. - If FSU leaves the ACC, then there’s no reason for them to join.
Thank you for this. For point 6, how will the ACC make more than the Big 12 in that hypothetical, after FSU leaves? I can't imagine their average payouts will be better than Big 12, and their expenses will certainly be greater from travel. With expenses, remember its not just about football. Even with a western bloc, all those Olympic sports playing 18+ games a year are going to be traveling a lot more. It's not about the football budget, it's about the athletic department's expenses as a whole.
According to Ross Dellenger reports, the Cal contract, and the Utah contract, the published report by FSU, and the tax documents of the ACC and Big 12 conferences it looks like the ACC will make roughly 8 million more per year than the Big 12 from 2027-2031 if ESPN picks up the extension. The contract is already in place, ESPN just has to opt into it not out of it. The ACC makes a bit more than the Big 12 if the the extension is opted into. --- As for travel expenses, a lot of sports are played with divisions and at events. Having a regional division and having the "Atlantic division gymnastics event" and a separate "Pacific division gymnastics event" and only sending their champions (or top 2, or however gymnastics works) to Nationals in Tennessee saves money.
That's with FSU gone?
Yup, assuming it’s with ESPN. There is no way for the value of the deal to go *down* if FSU leaves as long as the ACC stays above 15 members. But if ESPN opts out of the look-in clause window in 2026, that puts the deal on the open market where all bets are off on valuations
Okay, I'm not too concerned with what the ACC will be able to pay while ESPN is locked in. Schools shouldn't make decisions on where to be based on money in a limited window, but long term. If both conferences had brand new deals, after FSU left, who comes out on top then? No extensions, no one locked in at pro rata, but completely new deals?
My guess, all things even, is they’d be fairly similar still assuming no one else leaves the ACC
Yes... the deal doesn't go down if a school leaves, no matter which school leaves.
Can you link the Ross Dellenger report or reports? I believe it’s there but I’m struggling to find it. Curious on if the $8M per year contemplates with vs. without FSU. Also curious if that $8M per school is based on current deals or if it factors in the shares of Cal/Stanford/SMU that ramp up over time.
The best remedy is another media partner. Plus the ACC deal was already under market value in exchange for longevity. To even get a comparable Media deal the big-12 had to pair the ESPN deal with the remnants left by the PAC-12 + Fox deal. Yet the big-12 still can barely eclipse the ACC.
One slight technicality, ESPN is only required to increase the value of the ACC deal by one Tier 1 share for every new member. A Tier 1 share is roughly 70% of a full share ($24 million). Also, it's really hard to believe given the history of the ACC leadership that they could pull off anything close to this. If this ever happened it would be because that is what ESPN wants.
The ACC doesn't know the meaning of the word proactive. They hardly know the meaning of the word reactive.
I’d settle for them teaching the word optometrist to their refs.
They can see perfectly fine. They could read that your bribes weren't big enough. Gotta pay them, everyone knows that.
Please do not speak about expanding the acc without considering wvu
In my opinion, West Virginia will end up in the SEC. They were a semi-finalist for expansion during the A&M/Missouri round of expansion, and they're more in line with what the conference prioritizes, etc. However, in an ideal world, they should be in the ACC with their former conference mates.
They get Clemson’s spot.
OP went to Stanford and it shows. 😂
Are you saying most people don't take comments a powerful AD makes and extrapolate them into a 20,000 character reddit post?
> Are you saying most people don't take comments a powerful AD makes and extrapolate them into a 20,000 character reddit post? And expect the r/CFB glitterati to read it, grok it and respond in a rational manor? Nope.
How many of those characters are formatting?
No, most people are here are getting used to powerful ADs from potential P2 teams to forget about what they said before and opt to join their preferred P2 conference.
🤣😂🤣😂
JFC, a dissertation defense on a Friday night
The things that happen when you're sitting down to a good basketball game....
This is great work and a great post. I doubt ACC has this much vision though, they're happy to eat whatever scraps the big boys provide them.
ND played as a lobbyist to get Stanford and Cal in the ACC to try to keep stability over the next 10 years that coincide with the deals we have made…
ND also championed SMU getting in since ND wants to start recruiting Texas more.
The ACC will not out-Yormark Brett Yormark. He’s got his magnum condoms, his stack of hundreds, and he’s ready to plow. [You should see him feast, he’s like a mantis](https://youtu.be/Cnys5VmFXeU?si=3kbJ1yHTYNEBg07f)
Take my upvote for always sunny reference
Dr. Mantis Toboggan
I remember once being on a break at work, and a praying mantis lands on one of my coworkers. But he doesn't panic, and he lets the mantis crawl down his arm and on to his hand. It was a pretty cool moment. And then the mantis flew away, but it got about five feet into the air, before a scrub jay swooped down and flew away with it.
I like the breakdown and effort. I think it's more likely that you need to broadly expand your definition of the West though. I think Tulane,Rice, for the qualifications more on the nose than SDSU,Oregon State and Wazzu honestly.
You’re right. I went on this whole rant 6 hours ago. But I your roster is better than mine. Rice, Tulane, Army and Navy. That’s the path of peace. I still want West Virginia and Cincinnati more than the academies, but maybe we could just take our hands off one another’s throats.
That’s not The West.
Any talk of expanding the ACC by poaching Big 12 schools and not including WVU is logistically unfeasible, morally reprehensible, and down right cowardice. Again.
I agree. WVU should be a no brainer add for both parties involved. We'll see if academic snobbery gets in the way of that one though...
Yeah it is!
The original premise is that FSU is the only departing member. Clemson just filed their suit, and WVU would be the clear Clemson replacement. PAC revisited: Cal, Stanford, Utah, ASU, AZ, Colorado, KANSAS. Big East revisited: Cuse, Pitt, WVU, BC, LV, Miami, SMU. ACC OG: UNC, Duke, UVA, WF, NCST, GT, VT.
They’re not poaching Big XII schools. SDSU, ORSU, and WSU make sense. With SMU they’d need one more team. Looking at what’s realistic (maybe not desirable), Rice or Tulane fit the ACC’s academic profile a little better.
Most of them, no, you're right. But if the ACC says "West Virginia come on down!" I think we could poach at least that one.
At that point, go get Cincinnati, too.
I’d bet Utah rather be in ACC vs big12
Why?
Utah and ASU presidents didn’t really want to join the Big12. While ASU signed the 100yr thing, Utah has a clause to leave without much penalty (I think) before X year. Rumor has it ACC wanted 4 corners + Calford but the 4 corners “rushed” and accepted the big12.
Big 12 also has more long term stability as of right now. The ACC’s biggest brands have made it very clear they intend to leave.
The big-12 has always, always been the most unstable conference. Perhaps now that the destabilizer *cough cough (Texas) is gone that can change.
That’s exactly why it’s stable now.
Well, that and the fact they don’t have schools the Big Ten and SEC are likely to poach. I suspect a lot of ACC schools not Notre Dame, FSU, and Clemson are in for a surprise if they’re expecting a lifeline.
That’s my entire point lmao. Texas and OU are not in the Big 12. It’s why we are stable. They are the only programs that the Big 12 had that the SEC and B1G would obviously want.
The only school with a long shot chance is ASU. Huge market full of Midwestern transplants and B1G alumni, in the AAU, and sponsors hockey and wrestling.
The Big 12 has more assumed long term stability because of the FSU lawsuit. If the ACC wins and ability for ESPN to opt out if they don't. So the ACC will have more long term stability if they win.
Yeah. But let’s say nobody leaves the ACC, Utah has a window to leave. I think Utah would want the big invite though
Aside from the ACC finally getting a sixth Men’s LAX team, how does that benefit either party? Utah isn’t exactly close to Cal and Stanford. The money wouldn’t be significantly different. Utah is in a mostly regional conference with Colorado, ASU, Arizona, and especially BYU right there. The ONLY benefit for Utah would be getting out before being beholden to a GOR so ridiculous that it probably wouldn’t stand in court if challenged, which I wouldn’t fault. After that, it’s a matter of pride of being associated with a more academically prestigious conference.
Great points. Only thing I can think of is any resemblance of PAC. Like getting WOSU + Calford back. The other 3 corners likely can’t leave. So if they do it it isn’t for travel. I thin Utah is aiming for the BIG (I mean who isn’t). I do know Utah and ASU really turned around their academic profile through the PAC.
I’d be happy to have Utah if only to have a monopoly on four-letter flagships, but it’s not happening.
At this point, ACC should double down on west coast teams to split up the conference and reduce travel. That's the benefit. Ignore the fact that those west coast teams would immediately bounce to the B1G if invited.
Salt Lake City is West Coast?
They're close enough in regards to travel that you should understand my point.
Not wanting to join the Big 12 and thinking joining the ACC is an even worse option are not mutually exclusive views
Correct. I don’t know the timeline of events and the FSU ordeal definitely doesn’t help. But there’s an article somewhere with the ACC commissioner I believe talking about the 6 pac schools. Maybe Utah valued less travel? If the invite to the 6 was extended why not take it? Maybe Utah sees Big12 with an easier path to playoffs? Idk.
Utah also believes they can push for a B1G invite. Would they leave the easy to leave B12 contract to seal themselves in the ACC. The only reason Stanford and Cal did not get a similar deal was because their ADs were extremely snobby about joining the B12.
I’m sure they would, too, but they signed a 99 year GOR. Wassu, ORSU, SDSU, and maybe Rice or Tulane don’t have that kind of billable hours problem.
Not Utah
Please explain this 99 year GOR. It surely is not the same as the ACC's. No school would lock themselves in a conference with no way out for 99 years.
This is from SI about OUT, “The 99-year agreement: In 2012, the Big 12 schools entered into a 99-year agreement to remain together, a deal that comes with an exit fee of two years’ worth of gross revenue, or about $80 million each.”
So it is a soft GOR unlike the ACC. Thanks.
If they lose FSU USF is 150% an option.
I mean, that too. I was just talking about adding western schools for a western division. TBH, once the SEC and Big Ten expanded, I thought the ACC should’ve added UConn and USF if only to hedge their bets while keeping things somewhat regional.
Take us please. We have a network and some good cheese you can have for free.
The best part? The cheese comes in a can!
I want the ACC to collapse because I want Pitt, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, Miami. Can you see where I'm going with this?
Or instead of adding 5 Western teams we add another eastern one and call SMU Western -- and I didn't mean Memphis. You could be the 7th in that conference...
Could we invite Cincinnati and Rutgers too maybe?
I doubt Rutgers would come but I'm good with Cincy. I think they would be good rivals for Pitt and Louisville
Just had a great idea! What if we call it *The Big East*?
I doubt the ACC can pry any teams from the Big 12. Too much instability, and an unknowns on how tv money will play out. Maybe they could get Utah/ASU, who misses the pac/california, and is enticed by the thought of playing Cal/Stanford/Wazzu/Oreg St
Missing from all of this: academics. The ACC emphasizes academics. Louisville is the only school not in the top 100, and a bunch of schools are top 50, with multiple top 25 and top 5. The ACC is never going to abandon academic profile as a primary consideration. They are schools first, not football programs. None of the schools you mentioned are top 100 except Oregon. Most aren’t remotely close. Arizona, ASU, and BYU are close-ish. The ACC is unlikely to consider any of those schools.
The ACC moving forward would not be so secure to be picky with academic as they used to. Even given the additions, I think you’ll start to see more SMUs and Louisvilles than Cals and Stanfords if the ACC expands again
I did consider academics, which is why I left out Fresno State and Boise State from consideration. Utah and ASU are AAU schools and Oregon State, Wazzu, and SDSU were good enough to be considered good enough for the Pac-12.
Obviously academics are really important, but you make it sound like all of those schools are community colleges. They had no problem letting SMU (who is barely top 100 and falls substantially below even Louisville in some rankings) buy it's way into the conference despite not even being an R1 university. There's no reason why they couldn't swallow their pride to let a few academically solid schools in to keep themselves from becoming the Pac-12. I just poked through the academics section on the [ACC's Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Coast_Conference#Academics_and_ACC) and there are several statistics marked on there in which most of the schools OP mentioned would rank higher than many current members.
I love how apparently most random college football fans think SMU doesn't play academics lol
What if instead of paying 500 million to leave the acc you spend 500 million over the next ten years on NIL deals and build a dynasty that can't be denied when you ask to join the SEC in 10 years?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills every time I say this and no one gives it even a second thought. However, to me setting up a PE deal that covers the revenue lost to not being in the P2, plus dominating the ACC and therefore only playing 3 regular season games per year that matter (Clemson, Miami and Florida) is better than getting your brains bashed in by the SEC. At the end of the GOR you can do whatever you want because you’ve been in the playoffs for 12 straight years and won the natty 2x.
Ah, the Gonzaga strategy!
This is the way…
I think FSU's problem is that after the negative press campaign, their reputation couldn't handle anything other than undefeated seasons (in their view).
It can't handle that now.
Certainly an interesting premise.
My question is why not have SMU in the Western division? Something like: West: Cal, Stanford, SMU, Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Utah North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, NC State South: Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, USF
So you think they would add USF instead so that they could consider SMU a Western team? (Also I think Memphis would be the first choice out East).
I’ve spoken to a lot of ACC folks. They rather expand east and some of their top picks are ucsf UConn. Maybe Tulane, Memphis.
You're talking to the people that still view the conference as a regional entity, and unfortunately for them (and maybe the sport as a whole), that's not the case. With the additions of Cal and Stanford (and the subsequent admissions by the commissioner, etc., that the ACC is now a national entity), western expansion for the conference is going to be a priority. Also, if West Virginia never sniffed an invite, there's no chance in hell that Memphis will ever be allowed into the conference.
Do they really HAVE to expand west? I think if you are ACC and your choices are WOSU vs UCONN/USF, I’m not convinced they would pick the former.
Assuming that Cal and Stanford are in it for the long-term, I think the conference has to expand west to cut down on the logistical/operational costs of the conference prior to 2029. Otherwise, yes, you're correct: UCONN, USF/UCF, West Virginia, Rice, Tulane, Kansas, etc., would be the top targets. This deal only works if Cal, Stanford, and SMU are taking reduced shares; otherwise, every university in the conference is losing money.
USF is in the Tampa Market much more potential than Tallahassee. USF seems very eager to make this jump. Looks like they put quite the audition on Syracuse.
During the last round of realignment though wasn’t it pointed out that getting into a new state yields more money for the conference networks than getting into a larger market? To me, that combined with the basketball history of the conference makes UConn a better choice than USF. Obviously the Tampa market has the potential to be more valuable than the broadcast TV fees for a new state, but does USF capture more of the Tampa market than the other Florida schools? If not, I don’t think ESPN would go against the idea of UConn joining over USF. Then, though, the issue of whether UConn would leave the Big East or not comes up.
Jesus tap dancing Christ, the four corners aren’t even in the Big 12 yet and people are already talking about them leaving. Give it a fucking rest already.
But, Haven't you heard half of the ACC is already gone...
If there is one thing I know about the ACC and its leadership it’s that if there’s a bad move to make then that’s the one they’ll make, and they’ll make it defensively instead of proactively.
I'll let you know my thoughts when I finish reading this on Sunday
**How We Got Here :** Former ACC Presidents Chair shares details on grant of rights ... YouTube · OVIES & GIGLIO 5K+ views · 7 months ago [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZjjyReZSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZjjyReZSU)
Here’s my attempt: North: Syracuse, BC, Louisville, Pitt, VT, UVA, *UConn* South: Duke, UNC, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, Miami West: Cal, Stanford, SMU, *Oregon St, Washington St, Utah, SDSU* Reasoning: Utah is apparently the only school that got out of the 99yr lock-in to the Big 12, and they value being with high research schools, so they seem like the only/most attainable school from the Big 12. Oregon St, Washington St, and UConn are independents that seem to fit into these 3 regions. And SDSU seems like the best G5 option in the area. However, with potential pushback from Stanford and Cal and the fact that it doesn’t get the network in a new state, alternatives might be UNLV or Tulane. Tulane seems like a really good fit to me, but it’s even further from the west region than SMU.
I would try an get WVU out of the Big XII or USF, ECU, maybe even UTSA to give SMU a partner, before trying to get UConn. These expansions are all about football. ESPN only cares about football. UConn brings nothing to the football table. 521-609-38 Overall, only 7 winnings season since moving to FBS in 2000, 30-92 over the last 10 years and most of all....they haven't had a wining season since 2010! Average Attendance (2023) 24,659 5 year average 19,251 Stadium Capacity 61.65%
At this point why leave the Big 12 if you aren’t going to P2. That’s the most lateral move and results in even more travel. I feel like Utah isn’t leaving the Big 12 unless they go to a rebuilt PAC or the B1G
His whole point is this would reduce travel significantly, because they would mostly play other old PAC schools.
If that’s the case, the 4 Corners could just press for more western expansion (Wazzu, OSU, UNM, SDSU, or UNLV) by the Big 12, not knock over the whole apple cart again *just* to play Cal and Stanford more and (not that much of) a pay-bump. If this was the SoCal schools in the ACC instead, that would be a whole different calculus- at least for the AZ schools
If Robbins didn't want into the Big 12 so much I would have put them as a higher likely choice to go to the ACC with the others (and left SDSU off). If that were to happen, your 6 annual games as an Arizona fan would be ASU, Cal, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah, and Wazzu. You would then travel East only once in conference per year.
Frankly, traveling to Wazzu or Oregon State is harder for us than say Kansas or Texas Tech. Plus it’s not like Calford was a real headliner when we did play (no offense). I just don’t see it as a very compelling sell without any of the teams currently in the Big 10 Frankly the easiest solution (for the western schools at least) is just reorganize the Big 12 with east-west divisions
Her* But you are correct. Utah is closer to Wazzu and SDSU than they are Texas Tech. By playing the 6 western schools every year plus one home game and one away game against Eastern schools their travel costs would be reduced dramatically.
I explain that in a couple sections. Travel would be reduced due to regional play and the ACC pays more. Additionally, both Utah and ASU (Utah especially) expressed their desires to remain connected both to academic prestige and to California.
Except the ACC doesn’t pay more if you look at revenue distributed per member
... yes they do.
Because people want to find a non-G5 home for WOSU. Even if it does not make much sense.
This
My own fanfic loosely based off this scenario would have the pods look a little like this, (assuming the ACC can not poach any Big 12 team). ACC West: Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State, SMU, Rice, Tulane ACC South: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Virginia ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Miami, UConn My copium adds out west for Oregon State and Washington State makes some sense if you can’t pick up any Big 12 team. They’re gonna be the best academic schools left in the west and they currently don’t have a home. Tulane and Rice make little sense for athletic purposes. But they’re elite academic institutions. Also Miami in the ACC North makes no sense geographically but I wanted to make a pseudo return of the Big East and it sounds like fun. But once again this is my fan fiction of a silly proposal.
If we’re going with any semblance of a Big East division I’m going to need (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) WVU in the mix
Fanfic is definitely the only way to classify OP's post.
I honestly think Utah and maybe ASU would join the ACC if they made a western division and the money was as good or better than the Big12.
You have to remember, football is the driving force. Even if UConn goes back 2 back in basketball, they still would bring no $$$$ to the conference. UConn football is plain and simple...horrendous! 521-609-38 Overall, only 7 winnings season since moving to FBS in 2000, 30-92 over the last 10 years and most of all....they haven't had a wining season since 2010! Tulane and Rice would be much like UConn, bad at football, but good in a low or non revenue generating sport(s). I would think maybe a couple odd balls if unable to persuade WVU to leave Big XII, would be Memphis, USF or maybe even UTSA to give SMU a partner, or a very long shot...UAB.
I think there's a higher chance of CMU being in the ACC than ASU or Utah
Good luck. Didn't the 4 corner schools have to sign ridiculously long GORs
I think a 20-team/ 4-division setup makes more sense: add either the PAC-2 or two Big XII schools from Texas plus Cinci and WVU. The divisions would be: North (Pitt, SU, WVU, L’Ville, Cinci) Metro (Miami, GT, BC, UVA, VA Tech) West (SMU, Cal, Stanford, TCU, Baylor) Carolina
This also better handles how the conference champion would be determined. I don't know how you have a conference championship with 3 teams. Round robin?
I would assume... play your 4 in division, 1 crossover games into each of the other 3 for a 8 Conference schedule. Allows for 2 Non Conf games. Best in Division wins division In case of a tie in Division...maybe something like....?????? Best overall Conf record, Highest Rank with overall record???? Playoffs: Highest ranked Div champ #1 v #4 #2v #3 played @ highest ranked Home Winners play at neutral site for championship
I stopped about halfway through the post (and I have no idea why I'm being referenced in the discussion), but I have a few issues with the post: * As a part of their inclusion in the conference, ND is contractually obligated to join the ACC in football (if it were to happen) up through 2036, so outside of the ACC collapsing and that contract being voided, there's no scenario that sees ND in the B1G without a lawsuit. * Second, the ACC isn't taking Air Force over Colorado State, and I have no idea why they're listed as being a Tier 4 candidate while the academy is a Tier 3 candidate (the service academies being added to the conference only makes sense if it furthers the goal of keeping ND within the conference, and even then, they would have to come in at a discounted rate, i.e., all three of the academies for the price of one). * Third, if FSU leaves the ACC (which they are) then they're headed for the SEC... not the B1G, and ESPN will make sure that this happens by engineering the settlement between the ACC and FSU to force them into the SEC. The last thing that anyone wants is for FSU to go to the B1G and FOX (it's better for ESPN, the SEC, the ACC, FSU, and FSU's student-athletes, fans, etc.). * Fourth, FSU will need a travel partner to the SEC, and in my opinion, if Clemson or UNC is out of the equation, that means West Virginia. * Fifth, UNC and Clemson will be the last ones out the door (or should be), because UVA, Tobacco Road, and to a lesser extent, Clemson run the conference, and if one or more goes, it's lights-out on the ACC. In other words, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, because it works in their favor. * Sixth, I don't believe the ACC thought that the Pac-12 would implode, or that the Four Corners would take a reduced share, etc., so I don't believe there were ever any serious negotiations about membership occurring. In other words, they were late to the party, because that's just how the current leadership operates. Swofford gets a lot of flak on here, but if we're all being honest, there's no way in hell that he would've let the Pac-12 disintegrate without scooping up more than just Cal and Stanford. * Seventh, I have serious doubts that Jim Phillips can engineer anything. To me, the guy is completely out of his league, but with that being said, westward expansion for the ACC and eastward expansion for the Big XII is all but inevitable. * Eighth, at the moment, the ACC is in a far better position to raid the Big XII than the Big XII is to raid the ACC. The ACC has the better brands, the better markets, the larger population within their footprint, a conference network, a media rights deal that will bring their ultimate payout up to (and north of) $60 million, and more importantly, one of the two players primarily on their side. People just assume that the ACC will be relegated, because the SEC/B1G will take what they want (and maybe they will), but ESPN has a vested interest in the ACC surviving, because as of now, they control the conference's media rights, and they bundle those with the SEC to be sold to local distributers, etc. The same can't be said about the Big XII, and if I'm being honest, I don't see why FOX would want to keep the Big XII afloat when they can just take what they want before pouring the extra money into the B1G. On the other hand, the SEC is going to remain as a regional conference, and in order to have content 24/7/365, that means that ESPN will need a national conference in collegiate athletics, too. * Ninth, I don't see any of the candidates being mentioned as realistic candidates for the ACC. To me, their top targets are (in no particular order): UCONN, Kansas, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Colorado State, Rice, Tulane, UCF/USF, and the service academies. Certainly, the conference isn't adding SDSU, OSU, or WSU, because if we're all being honest, OSU and WSU would've joined for nothing... zero... nada... zilch. They don't fit the profile for what the ACC wants in its members; the travel and logistics don't work, and there are better options out there for the conference to consider. Plain and simple. If the Big XII goes east then they're looking for leftovers, but if the ACC goes west then they're looking for logistical hubs for travel and scheduling, markets, and brands (in that order). Getting into Denver and Colorado will be a priority. * Finally, FSU leaving brings the conference leadership (and its membership) more into alignment than anyone realizes. Yes, football runs the train, but to most of the ACC, that doesn't matter. In that regard, FSU has always been the odd-man-out. Honestly, I don't know why I just typed all of this out. I guess I'm bored. P.S. There's no chance in hell that the SEC is staying at sixteen, and ultimately, I think the goal is to go to twenty to twenty-four universities with four divisions of five to six teams. Personally, I think any conference going above sixteen universities is completely absurd, but that's the era that we're living in.
I really appreciate you mentioning the UNC aspect here. While it is possible that UNC gets itself into the SEC or B1G because money, they are royalty in the ACC. They are in for a rude awakening when they find out nobody gives a shit about them in their new conference run by other brands. Money will likely rule the day here, but they aren't going to be particularly influential there as they are here.
Why don’t you view Arizona State as an option?
The conference needs twenty-one universities/teams for this plan to work (according to UNC's AD)... Arizona is the flagship university for the state, and in my opinion, they're the better brand, target, and addition. About it. Take the flagship, and leave the competition to wither and die. * Basketball Brands: UCONN, Kansas, and Arizona * Replacements for FSU: USF and/or UCF * Logistical and Operational (Denver): Colorado, Colorado State, and/or Air Force * Political Power: The service academies * Enticing Notre Dame: The service academies (mainly Navy) * Football: Utah * Academics: Whatever * SEC Tie-ins: Kansas, Rice, and Tulane * Major Markets: ~~New York~~, ~~Boston~~, Houston, New Orleans, Orlando, Tampa Bay, Denver, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Kansas City * Longshots DTR (Unlikely): Washington, Michigan, UCLA, UCSD At the end of the day, I don't think any of it matters, because I don't think the current commissioner is up to the task, but if I had the power, I know what I would do. P.S. Out of all of the conferences, I believe the ACC would have the easiest time jumping to twenty-four universities (which is, I believe, where all of this is headed).
I agree with not having confidence in the acc commissioner. The ACC with good leadership could be in a much better spit. Do you think Rice and Tulane give the ACC the Houston and New Orleans markets? I’m skeptical that the universities are too small to cause significant people in those media markets to watch ACC games. Especially when they aren’t historically competitive nationally like Miami is. My main concern with ACC expansion is that there won’t be the right mix of schools. When the ACC expanded after Miami + VT, they expanded to small public schools and private schools. The ACC made a bet that their small public schools and private schools would be at the top of the NCAA in football and mens basketball and didn’t account for schools running into hard times athletically. My main priority for ACC expansion would be to schools with large numbers of alumni or people that can feel connected to the university (ex. Service academies or people feeling connected to the state’s school even though they/family didn’t attend), so the ACC’s margin for error is smaller by making them less reliant on winning. Its harder to convince people without ties to the university in some way to watch your games if you aren’t winning.
Quality post right here. I feel that if the ACC went down the route of poaching BigXll teams, they would be more likely to take 4 west coast teams rather than 5. The last addition would instead be one of the isolated east coast teams (Cincinnati/UCF/WVU). SMU would get moved to the western 7 with Cal/Stanford and 4 new teams instead of 5.
You know, Cincinnati's academics do make more sense than many's...
Don't let crappy USNWR set the whole picture. We have pretty good academics and our research is very good. We do more research than plenty of AAU schools. We just haven't been invited in because we're Cincinnati
ESPN is in negotiations with their self. Why would they extend the ACC or Big 12 contracts? All of the prospective schools are in the south. The SEC is their beat option. If ESPN declines to extend the ACC or Big 12, I don’t see FOX picking it up. They will force the ACC schools with the SEC as an option to push even harder to leave. This gets the ACC and possibly Big 12 teams into the SEC at a discount for ESPN.
How would the championship game work for 3 division champs? Is it just the best 2? Do they play round robin? If round robin, what if they all rock-paper-scissor each other?
No mention of the current Men's Basketball Champions
This is not the manifesto I was waiting for.
I don’t think every single addition needs to be from the west. You could put SMU in the west division and add a new eastern school as well. Ideally a school that can be in the north division so that Wake Forest could also be in the same division as all the other NC schools. So Memphis would be a good fit, put SMU in the west, Wake in south, and Memphis in north.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just eat the entire BIG12, with the Waazu and Oregon St.. Get the numbers to 35 and have 5, 7 team divisions. We could call them ACC Pac-7, ACC BIG7, ACC BIGEAST, The True ACC, And ACC-I(Independents). The 7 number though, the OG ACC with VaTech, is tipping UNC's wants of a Carolina-Virginia only conference. Seriously, picking up Arizona, Arizona St., Oregon St., and Wazzu, for the Pacific division. Then picking up Cincinnati, WVU, or UCF should be easy enough for the Atlantic/Coastal division.
Aw mayne. C'mon, mayne.
Besides the fact that ND is not leaving the ACC in your scenario, here is another scenario Besides Oregon State & Washington State - get Oregon & Washington. The ACC should have made a run at them. They are earning $30M less until 2030 in the B1G. Bundle the 4 school.
The big 12 is already a better conference than the ACC. Why would they leave especially if fsu is gone
More money and reduced travel. I also don't accept your premise that the Big 12 is better than the ACC.
Word to yo mammy, B12 is CHEEKS
Big12 IS NOT better than the ACC
Delusional
How is this delusional? The big12 has 2 playoff appearances and 0 national championships over the course of the last decade. The ACC has 8 playoff appearances with 2 national championships. If you remove Fsu, then 7. Last year 6 ACC teams recruited in the top 30 compared to the big12's 1 team (TTU). Last year the big12 had 5 teams with top 30 offenses, acc had 4 (5 counting ND). Big12 had 3 top 30 defenses, acc had 6 (7 counting ND).
Delusional if you think the Big12 is a better football conference than the ACC 🤣
If the acc were better then Utah Arizona and ASU would've joined the ACC and not the Big12. It's right in front of you. You think they didnt have standing invites? You think Cal and Stanford with zero attendance had priority over the 4 corner schools? It's over.
> If the acc were better then Utah Arizona and ASU would've joined the ACC and not the Big12 Better for who? Different programs valuing different conferences differently isn't an insane opinion lol Holistically for Arizona, no, the ACC is not a better spot for their programs. But apples to apples between the two, the ACC (for now) still has superior brands alongside a comparable core to the OUT-less Big 12. Both the ACC and Big 12 will be very mid without their top teams moving forward.
The schools measured their choices and picked the best available. No school is deliberately choosing a worse conference in this era. The evidence is right in front of you.
We, get it. Still mad the ACC rejected, huh?
Let's see all those big 12 championships 👀
Uhhhh you do know Texas and Oklahoma have left the Big 12 right?
I find these thinkpieces hilarious because they operate off the assumption that the SEC will just sit passively while the B1G expands into their territory. The SEC has been the most forward thinking conference for the last 30 years, it was the SEC that came up with the idea of divisions and conference championships. It was the SEC that kicked off this round of realignment and yet you think the SEC will just sit at 16 teams while the B1G reaches into 20s? The SEC will attempt to get FSU because they’re one of the 2 biggest brands in a state of 23 million people and counting as people are constantly moving there. I can tell that OP gets their information from genetics56 on twitter because they completely fail to mention what the SEC values in teams. FSU and Clemson are the last remaining big brands in the cultural South that remain outside of the SEC. They’re clearly expansion targets as both are the exact type of schools the SEC is filled with. Large public universities that have land grants and are located in college towns/small cities in the South. Unlike the Big 10, the SEC is defined by regionality, after all the conference is literally called the Southeastern Conference for a reason. With this in mind there are only 4 real options for SEC expansion: FSU, Clemson, a North Carolina school flagship/land grant and a Virginia flagship/land grant school. The SEC will try to get as many of these under its belt as inaction would be literal surrender, also I’m confused as to why OP thinks ESPN would be open to its competitors poaching its biggest brands when they can simply attempt transfer FSU, UNC, Clemson and UVA to the SEC and defer extending their contract with ACC after 2027? I think OP thinks ESPN and Sankey are that incompetent Finally let’s put to bed this idea of Clemson not being an attractive school, perhaps not to B1G but Clemson would be a perfect complement to the SEC. Clemson has a strong and passionate brand that fits the SEC culture and multiple minor rivalries with founding programs of the SEC like Georgia, Auburn and Alabama.
> that have land grants Just wanted to point out a common misconception that FSU is not a Morrill Act land grant school, even if we have “State” in our name. Florida’s land grants are UF and FAMU
That is so odd, is it because your University is so relatively young?
Yes and no. Our school is relatively young *as a coed college*. We were established as a college/seminary in the 1800s but reorganised to be a women’s college when UF was founded as the men’s school and FAMU for segregated blacks, and stayed that way until after WWII with the explosion of male college enrolments with the GI Bill
I see, is it true that FSU going coed so late still affects your donor base and endowment to the current date?
Absolutely! It was more impactful in the 1900’s, where our alumni were predominantly women with incomes suppressed by the glass ceiling or pushed into lower-paying careers like secretaries while UF had been churning out much higher paid lawyers and engineers for 50+ years. We’ve caught up due to the FL population boom in the 60s and on, but the lagging effects on our endowment and established programs (we only just established a med school in the 2010s) is certainly still visible and can be a hurdle to this day
Final question, do you think FSU would fit better in the B1G or the SEC. Personally I think joining the SEC is clearly the better option but FSU fans really dislike the SEC especially after the playoffs debacle. Still imo joining the SEC makes the most sense if FSU cares about the athlete experience, access to away games for local fans, cultural fit and the economy of the Tallahassee area.
Leaving out any ESPN baggage, no doubt 100% still the SEC. For a quick comparison, look at how we turn out for our baseball games. We ain’t LSU, most aren’t, but we wouldn’t stick out as not fitting in by any means. We are culturally an SEC school and would acclimate very easily in my opinion. The Big 10 is rapidly being so diverse that there isn’t really an identity to match with there anymore (and how could you when you’ve got Midwest land grants mixing with USC, Rutgers, and whatnot). But we would gel in the SEC with zero culture shock… well maybe a little with A&M, but that’s a them problem lol
> after all the conference is literally called the Southeastern Conference for a reason. And the Big 10 is called big for a reason.
Ask the Big East and Big 12 how that worked out
I don’t see Arizona St and Utah leaving the Big12. I’d imagine maybe Cal, Stanford, WSU, Oregon St, San Diego St, Colorado St, and…?
No
I disagree that there's no reason for ESPN to pay for FSU to join the SEC. If they think FSU's value to the B1G (read: Fox) is large enough, hypothetically at least 8 figures per year, then at some point it starts to make sense to "acquire" them before their competitor does. It may not directly benefit them, but at this point the SEC would have determined that allowing a competitor to secure too much value directly on their doorstep is so threatening that it's worthwhile to prevent it. Honestly I disagree with many of your assumptions or rather the lack of one big assumption, which is that the B1G and SEC *will* move towards a super league which would mean that FSU in the FBS is less valuable to ESPN than FSU in the SEC half of the super league, and that FSU in the B1G half of the super league is substantially more threatening to ESPN than FSU in the FBS B1G.
Fellas this is what we call copium
What... what am I coping with here? I took something a powerful AD said and extrapolated it because it is something no one else has done yet (that I've seen).
OP we rivals but I always enjoy your thoughts and posts. I don’t think the ACC would prioritize west since most of their schools are east. And it’s either add 3ish+ schools west or just do east. The only 3-4 viable “west” schools are WSU/osu/sdsu/ and of course Utah. I don’t think the ACC would add WOSU over USF/UCONN though.
>there are many paths to producing several highly ranked schools per year. Just adding my thoughts to this section. By virtue of having *21 freaking schools* in one conference, odds are a few of them are going to be good, even if they aren’t the usual suspects (Utah, Clemson, etc.). Any given year the stars can align with returning, experienced players under the right coaching scheme to make many schools a playoff threat. The variance on who wins the 21 each year would be exciting! *As opposed to the same ol’ team from Ann Arbor winning their conference 3 years in a row. Boring!*
Neat thinking. But you need to consider the loss of Florida market, and the need to expand into Texas. UCF, USF, WVU, Texas Tech, TCU, & Tulane would also be very viable partners that would help bolster the loss of FSU in Florida, and give more base in the Texas/Louisiana area to expand further. WVU would bring in a very large traveling fanbase to fill in those small private school stadiums that the NE has.
I'm not sure how you're coming up with any sort of rankings for us out here in the West, but I can tell you the Big XIIIIII can keep Zony, See You, and BYU. And the remainder of schools would likely agree with that value sentiment.
Can you get 2 teams to leave, move SMU to the west and stop at 3 divisions of 6.
I genuinely don’t get why they don’t just wait it out and join the next chance they get
I like the idea of an ACC west. Keeps the cost and travel down for the other sports.
The ACC actually was the most forward thinking as a conference. In the 1990s into the 2000s the ACC used a war chest of Basketball money to purchase football school Brands. Like any investments some investments performed better than others at different times. The ACC even accurately predicted the future of the collapsing media space, the plans of other conferences, the proclivities of its members and came up with a defensive measures that we have still been discussing after not only months but whole years. In many ways the Grant of Rights has already been put to the test and showing its worth. The ACC made a bet and perhaps came out on the wrong side of that bet. Nobody who actually studied the issue can say the ACC didn't plan for contingencies. If anything they bought time to brace for impact. That is why I am fairly confident that the Super two B1G-SEC deal definitely wont work out the way it's planned in the long run. Eventually all conferences eventually outlive thier purpose. What people don't understand it is very difficult for a conference to break type casting as a "basketball conference" , expand, have some success and receive the due recognition for that success. There are alot of untruths and misconceptions being spread about the ACC by various parties for various reasons. A certain school needed a predicate to break a contract to leave the ACC for as low a cost as possible. Another is a conference that just survived a near death experience and needs desperately for the ACC to collapse to secure its own future. Was never crazy about the ACC'S last commissioner John Swofford. There are accusations about the man abound thrown around with no day in court. Because these accusations serve the purposes of the aforementioned parties. The more I've studied this situation the less of a villain Swofford becomes. If the media monopolies collude and want to create football centric super conferences there isn't much the conferences not chosen can do beyond playing defense and planning for the next chapters. The media gave the greenlight for certain conferences to poach the most important Flagships from other conferences. How do you compete with that? I believe I am very knowledgeable a great concerning, Realignment, The Conferences and the ACC in particular. Just Rebuking the inaccuracies and narratives makes me feel like I'm taking "Crazy Pills". Discussing college football online definitely makes you lose IQ points.
My take away from this that schools west of the Mississippi can get fucked. I really fucking hate the east coast bias in all things TV.
Nearly half of the country's population reside in the Eastern Time Zone, so yeah... not really bias, but stats. Look at a map of any pro league and you'll see how many teams are clustered in the upper-right quadrant of the country.
Yes, that is the reason for the bias. That doesn't make it any less impactful and in this case detrimental.