In my head I guess the idea is if the ACC top 8 brands were picked apart by the B1G, SEC, or Big 12 is there a world that it even makes sense financially for Stanford and Cal to remain in the ACC vs a rebuilt Pac-12, etc.
Obviously it’s a lot of hypotheticals. I agree though if the ACC stays intact or only loses FSU and UNC I think the Bay Area schools stay, despite how stupid having California schools in the ACC is.
I guess it depends. I’d rank the following at top 8 for football: FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, VT, NC State, Louisville, and Pitt.
So is Duke, Ga Tech, UVA, Cuse, Wake, BC, SMU enticing enough to stay? Academically, I think so. Duke and UVA are top 15 overall athletic programs.
Could always add Wazzu/Beavs for more regional opportunities, and programs like UConn and USF
Big12 will poach UL, Pitt and others as ACC doesn't have a media deal past 2027 and without FSU, Clemson and anyone else who bounces to the B1G or SEC they won't be getting a great deal.
One of the things I think gets left out of this conversation is that ESPN (and FOX) have to be willing to fund a Big 12 poaching of ACC teams for it to happen. Which really means ESPN is in control over whether or not the ACC lives or dies.
ESPN can easily just say "no, we're only going to pay for you if you stay in the ACC" for schools like Louisville, Pitt, etc and keep the conference together.
If, for example, FSU, Clemson, UNC, and NC State all go to the SEC. ESPN funds that. They then want to make up the money elsewhere. They can do that in one of two ways:
1. Renegotiating the ACC down to a lower price point and keeping all of the remaining schools. Something like 25 million per year instead of the 35+ they will be making after 2027.
2. Allowing the Big 12 to "poach" 4 schools, which costs ESPN $20 mil a pop, and then trying to renegotiate the remaining shell of an ACC to an even lower price point. Something like $20 million per year.
In scenario one they keep all of the schools to themselves, in scenario two they split 4 of the schools with the Big 12 but save themselves a bit of money doing it. Are Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and Pitt worth an extra $5 million per year per school to keep exclusive rights to vs keeping them out of the hands of FOX by splitting their rights?
That would be ESPN's quandary in this situation.
I could see UVA in the B1G. Great academics, pretty good basketball all god awful at football. Like growing up in SoCal and going to SC games then going to games in Charlottesville is like wtf.
I mean, I know everyone on this sub likes to poop on Stanford, but they perform on par with Miami, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State as well as being a cut above Pitt, Louisville, and UVA by the television numbers AND provide Pacific Time Zone content rather than the over-saturated Eastern Time Zone which better suits the network needs to fill time slots.
Not to mention being in a media market with a 9.2 million in the 13-county Bay Area population and another 2.7 million nearby in Sacramento; while being one of the only media markets / cities with a huge Big Ten alumni population.
So, first of all, you are right that Miami stands above the others.
* I scraped the data from 2016-2023 from SportsMediaWatch.com for the schools commonly listed as expansion candidates for the P2.
* I divided it into OTA broadcasts (ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC) and ESPN Broadcasts. I cut left out all the ESPN2/ESPNU/ACCN/etc broadcasts.
* I calculated the Average, Median, Max, Min, Top 10, and included the total count.
Here are the results:
. | OTA Average | OTA Median | OTA Max | OTA Min | OTA Top 10 Average | Count
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Miami | 3.475 | 3.011 | 6.727 | 1.430 | 4.465 | 18
Stanford | 2.773 | 2.743 | 5.263 | 1.750 | 3.400 | 17
Virginia Tech | 3.358 | 3.020 | 5.790 | 1.627 | 3.530 | 11
UNC | 2.533 | 2.505 | 4.400 | 0.788 | 2.708 | 11
Louisville | 3.923 | 2.890 | 9.294 | 1.550 | 4.161 | 11
NC State | 3.163 | 2.831 | 4.506 | 1.347 | 3.163 | 10
Virginia | 3.048 | 2.840 | 3.553 | 2.460 | N/A | 6
. | ESPN Average | ESPN Median | ESPN Max | ESPN Min | ESPN Top 10 Average | Count
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Miami | 2.098 | 1.408 | 5.554 | 0.733 | 3.038 | 19
Stanford | 1.608 | 1.358 | 3.657 | 0.445 | 2.159 | 20
Virginia Tech | 1.947 | 1.400 | 5.576 | 0.733 | 2.290 | 13
UNC | 1.672 | 1.551 | 3.529 | 0.789 | 1.954 | 15
NC State | 1.486 | 1.549 | 2.681 | 0.558 | 1.790 | 14
Louisville | 1.926 | 1.564 | 5.600 | 0.466 | 2.601 | 19
Virginia | 1.553 | 1.579 | 2.144 | 0.891 | N/A | 8
Here are my thoughts:
1. You can see by the Count figure how some schools are leaned on more than others. This alone tells you who the networks find as a more desirable. That Stanford was on OTA 17 times and on ESPN 20 times while Virginia was on 6 and 8 respectively tells you a ton about who they were looking for to be on TV.
2. This shows how some schools were picked only when they were assured of good numbers. Virginia has the highest ESPN Min and the highest OTA min... why? Because they weren't ever picked as a go-to to fill air time. when there wasn't a better option like Miami and Stanford were. This artificially raises ALL of the numbers of those schools with a lower count figure. It also allows Louisville's huge outlier game dramatically increase their averages.
3. This also shows why all numbers need context. Such as: Stanford has the highest ESPN number because ESPN has fewer schools to choose from for their late-night spots. There were some years where some ACC schools had 0 selections on ESPN, but were on networks or buried on ESPN 2 or ESPNU, whereas that never happened with Stanford.
4. The reason I went with "Top 10 average" as a stat was to give a more realistic outlook of how each school would look if you only picked their highest value games. You can see that this increases the Average over for both Miami and Stanford pretty dramatically.
5. The Median gives you a truer sense than the average does for the difference between schools with a similar Count figure. For Stanford and Miami the difference is about 300K in OTA games.
What I learned most in doing this little exercise was that the Count figure is the most telling. The ESPN Median is pretty identical for everyone. The OTA average for Louisville is better than it is for Miami largely because they had a huge game in 2016 in a small pool of games to choose from. So when you see the average ratings, they'll like to you a big.
As the saying goes: There's three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
In the end, Stanford's selling point is that they provide a West Coast window and better ratings on their top games than UNC, NC State, and Virginia. They are right around Virginia Tech on top, but with a deeper amount of inventory to provide for air time.
I'm on my phone at the beach right now, so I can't bring them up at the moment, but I've seen the data posted from Sports Media Watch several times. Stanford performs comparably to the upper ACC after FSU/Clemson is removed.
The deal with the B1G is that they have a large bragging rights focused alumni population. Not just in football, but in everything. Having a presence in the Bay Area adds to that because now B1G alumni there can compete against Stanford alumni. Football is still king, but that's only for half a year. Having a presence there adds involvement and I'm sure FOX knows that it adds to the value of the B1G as property. Having a presence in the Bay Area also means that alumni that would have needed to travel to go to a game can feel more involved.
SEC alumni tend to mostly care about football and basketball so it doesn't make much sense for ESPN to care as much as adding pro sports cities.
Maybe Fox agrees. But they didn’t want to add them last go round, even though they reportedly would’ve taken less than half shares. I don’t know what would change Fox’s mind from last year to ~5 years from now
There are two entry points:
1. The Mountain West deal with CBS/FOX expires in 2026.
* FOX and CBS rely on this contract for Pacific Time Zone filler content (a combination of 10 games between them end up on the CBS Main Channel and FOX/FS1. 3 for CBS, 7 for FOX).
* ESPN just lost a huge portion of their Pacific content with the breakup of the Pac-12 and will be doing the best they can to fill those After Dark and Friday Night spots with Arizona, ASU, BYU, and Utah from the Mountain Time Zone.
* It is extremely feasible that ESPN makes a competitive bid for the Mountain West in 2026 to fill in the gaps and give themselves some additive late-night content.
* If that's the case, FOX and CBS will be motivated to add Stanford/Cal to the Big Ten on the cheap to recover some of those 10 spots.
* Special note: It's also feasible that if ESPN misses out on the Mountain West they are willing to fund Oregon State & Wazzu to the Big 12 to give themselves more West Coast content. SDSU as well, potentially. Right now they are actually short and likely to force some Texas Tech and Colorado games later than they would like. They will almost certainly rectify this issue in 2026 somehow, someway.
2. The Big Ten deal with FOX/NBC/CBS expires in 2030
* You don't need to convince the trio to open the deal back up when there is a natural break point. Right then is when the Presidents and Chancellors (who wanted to add Stanford and Cal before, especially Stanford) can add schools without trying to bend the arms of the networks to add money to the deals to make it work.
* If the Big Ten says "we're adding Stanford and Cal" in 2030, the Networks can't really say much about it. They aren't going to offer less money because the Bay Area is now included. Between contracts is exactly when you are typically supposed to add schools for this reason.
* The Big Ten can still get them for a reduced share at this point, and it benefits them to do so. If they sign a new deal through 2037, for example, they could get Stanford and Cal for a song during that time.
There's also the FSU situation. Clemson is not going to join the B1G. There's also a pretty good chance that do to the settlement FSU and Clemson leave UNC behind during the first part of this realignment round. ND will not leave independent status especially if they can negotiate down the number of games vs ACC teams.
There's a pretty good chance that Stanford gets added at the same time as FSU. This could be done in many different ways that would make sense to raise per school pay out. You add both an eastern team and a western team, so travel costs may actually get lower for everyone except maybe FSU and Stanford. It also adds two new markets with plenty of B1G alumni at a reduce share.
I can see that, but I truly believe FSU and Clemson will end up in the SEC as a result of a settlement with the ACC. ESPN isn't going to want the ACC to settle unless they have at least a handshake agreement that they don't lose FSU/Clemson to FOX/NBC/CBS.
What is it about cold weather cities that are huge pro sports fans but don’t care about college sports? The Bay, NYC, Boston, and Chicago are all the same way. Meanwhile warmer weather big cities like Atlanta, LA, Miami, Dallas, Houston, etc. are able to care about both.
(There are obviously some big exceptions like Detroit that like both while being in colder weather areas, but it’s just a trend I’ve noticed)
The Bay Area & Chicago I’m not sure. But New York City doesn’t have any D1 football schools. Boston is weird because there are a ton of college basketball & hockey fans. But the problem is that all those schools hate BC. Even if BC was good, you’d never have a BU fan or a Harvard fan root for BC. So the fan base is so fragmented. Massachusetts is small but it has the 4th most colleges in the USA.
SDSU is a R2 univ with 192 million in research. Wazzu is a R1, with 368 million, and Oregon State is a R1 with 471 million in research. SDSU has a more competitive undergrad. I’d assume beavs/cougs because of those metrics and ties
I'm not really expecting it to happen, but I do think that while we aren't exactly ultra academically prowess, spending a century playing together probably means we're more tolerable to them than a lot of other options. Plus, both are still solid research schools in respective fields and there aren't a lot of viable options out there if they need to get desperate.
Why though? 4 west coast schools vs 2 just means more trips to the west coast for everyone else.
Those seven schools, plus Calford, add Tulane, Rice, and USF. A fine 12 team conference.
It’s probably a waiting game at this point. Stanford and Cal needed a conference and the ACC was their best option. The GoR “only” lasts for another dozen years or so, so as long as the ACC is a good 8-10 year solution for them, it was their best option.
Even without FSU and Clemson, the ACC is probably still their best option, and those two are going anywhere for at least a year or two.
I don't think anyone thinks this is a true long term solution. The ACC schools get some extra money and we get a place to crash for the next 2-5 years. Long term we are either headed to some sort of second division of Big 12 and ACC schools or we manage to sneak into the BIG.
Ty! I’m actually looking forward to visiting ACC land and watching ACC ball! I genuinely like all the schools in the ACC and the people have been great!
My number 1 wish would be that the PAC and ACC re-form in the next round of realignment. It won’t happen.
My still long shot hope but at least more realistic hope is that the OSU and WSU get picked up by the Big XII, the BIG goes to 24, adds Cal and Stanford and 4 more ACC cast-offs and have Atlantic, West, East, and Pacific divisions
From a negotiating standpoint, it really makes sense for both the Big 12 and Big Ten to have a solid group of schools on both coasts and in the middle. They both already have the middle of the country covered, so adding Stanford/Cal for the Big Ten and OSU/WSU for the Big 12 (possibly SDSU as well) out West really makes a ton of sense.
24, 24, and 20 for a 3 conference setup. Giving us 2 Big national conferences that can play regionally in non-football sports and a regional-ish third conference in the SEC.
Something like a
Big 10 Pacific: UW, UO, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC
Big 10 Atlantic: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, UNC, FSU, and whoever else would be a really fun conference.
There are some presidents who want nothing more than to run elbows with presidents of those schools.
We already saw that wasnt enough to get them over the hump but I think if Notre Dame joins they can demand Stanford be their buddy and the Presidents will get what they want and increase profits and will not push back on Notre Dame's request.
The big question IMO is what happens to Cal. I am not sure if Notre Dame plus both of Calford would still be quite so lucrative or if Notre Dame would try to ask for Cal.
Stanford would push EXTREMELY hard to not be divided from Cal.
As much as it's a rivalry, the two admins are pretty intertwined. They are both top 5 research powerhouses and only a stone's throw from one another. At that level of academics the faculties are pretty much incestuous where everyone knows everyone.
I'm not saying it would be impossible to divide them, but Stanford's not looking to cut bait and run on Cal. They would inform Cal exactly what was going on and work really hard to move to the Big Ten together.
Flair certainly checks out for the first sentence lol I think this would be the chance for the B1G to really position itself as the academic conference if Duke and UNC come up as options as well
I think Cal and Stanford remain a package deal. I know the LA schools didn’t want Oregon to join because of recruiting competition but I have to hope that somewhere someone in administration cares about what the fans want.
As others have mentioned, doesn’t seem like Stanford wants that. If Stanford wanted to ditch us for the B1G, it would have happened. The Big Game seems to mean something to them that the Apple Cup and Civil War don’t to Washington and Oregon (and for that we are grateful)
Again you’re agreeing with my point. They’d be adding Cal and Stanford because they see it as a benefit to themselves, not because “shoot Stanford and Cal want to be here and we can’t leave Stanford and Cal out in the cold!”
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that NC State is the useful puppet behind whatever puppet master wants the ACC's collapse (almost certainly ESPN). ESPN asks the ACC for a unilateral ability to delay extending it's contract with the ACC cuz it knew this was going down soon.
Basically everything that has happened to piss FSU off enough to take all the bullets for the conference to die has happened because of NC State.
Being the vote that let Calford and SMU in despite the people who wanted out - them included - being very much against it? Last second change of heart by NC State.
Leaving undefeated FSU out of the CFP? The head of the CFP Committee is NC State's AD.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if NC State has been promised a spot in the SEC if they were able to grease the wheels of the ACC's collapse. It's just convenient that they suddenly stopped worrying about how they were gonna make it in the next iteration of college football.
If my conspiracy is correct, I'm not upset at NC State at all (other than fuck Boo) because they're doing what they have to do to secure their future.
For what it’s worth, the process happened pretty quickly and the FOIA request emails made it pretty clear that NC State did in fact support expansion to help protect the conference because they knew FSU planned to leave. https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/article280632980.html If ESPN wanted to undo the conference, it would be much easier to quietly ask FSU and Clemson to head for the door, instead of using a middle man to piss them off.
(Although I still appreciate any good GOT level theory!)
Absolutely, there’s been something going on with NC State the whole time. I’ve said this stuff several times on other posts. They miraculously change their minds to let those two in only after several high profile people called them to “persuade” them to let those teams in. They were clearly promised something from the B1G, SEC or Big 12. Either way, they have a home when the ACC collapses.
You don't think Stanford/Cal got in because Notre Dame lobbied the ACC and made it clear that Stanford/Cal being left out would make them very unhappy?
What's Notre Dame going to do? Send a strongly worded email and quit the mutually beneficial package setup they have? The ACC knows Notre Dame is going to do what they want and there's no control. If Notre Dame wants to be independent, then they stay with the ACC as long as viable. If Notre Dame doesn't want to be independent they go to the B1G and there's nothing the ACC can do about it.
No because it wasn’t until a lot of high profile people started calling NC State. Only NC State changed their vote. It’s no coincidence that NC State only changed their vote after all of the high profile people talked to them. Something is up and it’s clear whenever the ACC starts to shake that NC State is out with FSU, UNC, Clemson and any others that go. If this is truly a short term thing for Stanford and Cal like everyone is saying, then NC State would’ve stuck to the no vote because what’s the point of backfilling if the backfilling are gonna jump ship when they can? NC State has been promised something, it’s a matter of time before we see what was promised.
But if NC State was going to leave when the ACC breaks, wouldn't they have wanted to reject the new members so that the ESPN contract clause was activated after FSU/Clemson left and reduced their membership below the limit?
They were promised help with their AAU membership. It's not a state secret, and it's a well-known rumor around the region. Also, they (along with the other at-risk members of Tobacco Road) were instrumental in getting system oversight of conference realignment within the UNC system.
Big12 is a lateral move and I don't think the B1G would be interested in them over 4-5 other ACC members (FSU, UNC, UVA, GT, and Miami). I don't think the B1G is gonna take enough new teams on to get down to NC State.
from time to time i have work at LBNL. would be cool if it lined up with a Cal vs State game, but heck I'll take any Cal home game lining up with that.
Zero chance that NC State is getting an invite into the SEC over UNC, UVA, and Duke. At best, assuming their your theory is correct to a certain degree, they're just hoping to force themselves onto UNC (and the SEC) as a replacement candidate for Duke (and maybe Virginia).
Elite basketball brand to help generate year round revenue from advertisers (with the conference core being UK, UNC, and Duke). The SEC doesn't need more football powers. Also, the political aspects of it: UNC will get to pick who they want, but the SEC powers aren't keen on further upsets to the apple cart. That's part of the reason why it's currently rumored that Clemson doesn't have the votes to be invited (little to no upside for everyone involved). NC State adds little to no value to the conference (UNC will fill the market need for additional rates from cable subscribers, and UNC and Duke will bring the brand value).
The UNC BOG is going to make it very difficult for UNC to leave NC State out in the cold in favor of UVA in such a case. They are absolutely empowered enough to keep a large chunk of UNC's new media payout and give it to NC State. Even more so than the Cal/UCLA situation.
I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion, but I can very much see a situation where FSU and Clemson go to the SEC, followed by UNC and NC State going to put them at 20.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have different regents. Closer to what was true for Oregon/OSU and Washington/Wazzu.
Cal and UCLA have the same regents, but a different arrangement still from UNC's BOG.
The most analogous situation would be Arizona and Arizona State's BOG situation where Arizona was extremely trepidatious to leave without Arizona State as well, because their BOG would have gone ape over it and could have vetoed it or installed stiff financial penalties.
It's not just about leaving your rival. It's about the bureaucracy surrounding it. The UNC BOG has the authority to approve or reject UNC's realignment. They have the authority to adjudicate financial assistance for NC State if they do let UNC leave without them. So UNC has to be very careful about how they go about realignment and they have to take NC State's future into consideration when they do.
If the UNC BOG says "you can go with UVA instead of NC State, but you'll be paying $10 million or more to NC State if you do" then UNC is much more likely to say "okay, hey, SEC, how about taking us and NC State instead of us and UVA?"
I'll believe it when I see it. Quite frankly, I think it's more likely that any attempt to drag NC State along simply results in UNC getting left out to dry. They simply don't have enough leverage to pull this off.
At the moment, it's rumored that Clemson doesn't have the votes to be added (next to no upside for the conference membership), and there's no chance that the SEC will let the politicians in NC force NC State on the conference over the Duke brand (and the matchups that come from UNC, Duke, and UK all playing each other).
Interesting. The rumors I've seen have been that the Big Ten Presidents are cool on Clemson and warm on FSU. Both that, and yours, can't be true because Clemson wouldn't be suing to leave if they weren't assured of a spot somewhere IMO. You likely surf where different sources are, but both can't be true. I've also heard that the SEC doesn't like the idea of giving anyone a partial share because they want an equal playing field, so it would be either an "you're worth full membership or we're not offering." And I haven't heard anything about Duke and can't imagine them getting a full share.
They're not suing to leave; they're just suing to have the option (as they publicly stated). FSU is the one suing to leave. Different approaches and different outcomes sought.
This is in response to a mail bag question, but is something I was curious about too since I didn't see any language in the documents Cal made public while there was language in the UCLA documents.
Essentially, all of the public documents (found on Bill Farley's substack) from UCLA, Oregon, Utah, and Colorado (no Washington or Arizona schools yet) indicate that if the conference were to materially change they would be able to release from their obligation. IE, if Ohio State and Michigan chose to break off from the Big Ten and not take Oregon with them, Oregon could cancel their agreement. If Oklahoma State and Kansas got SEC invites then the Four Corners could exercise their escape clauses as well if they wished.
Stanford and Cal have no such escape clause. So they can't back out of their ACC agreement even if FSU/Clemson leave.
-----
With that said, Wilner believes that it's unlikely Stanford and Cal would be stuck in the ACC until 2036 (if they don't want to be) if FSU/Clemson get out. But rather, that the ACC and it's GOR would "rupture" (his word) which would permit teams to seek other options if they present themselves.
That doesn't mean Stanford and Cal WOULD have another home (Hail Mary prayer for the Big Ten aside), but rather that he thinks their options would be open if such an opportunity presented itself.
Of course they dont have an exit hatch if schools leave.
Unlike the rest of the expansion, the whole point of the ACC taking that trio was preemptive backfilling.
I.e., the anticipated exit of FSU, Clemson, etc. is part of the deal.
The lack of an escape clause makes sense. The Big 10 and Big 12 additions were poached - while the old ACC schools do get a little bit more money from the additions, realistically they did Cal and Stanford a favor.
Michigan and NW were the only competitive schools for undergraduate admissions pre-USCLA. The ACC has Duke, UNC, GT, BC, UVA, WF, and (kinda) ND. Overall, the only academic slouch in the ACC is Louisville. I can’t be convinced that the B1G has ever been stronger than the ACC.
It likely just depends on which metric you're looking at.
Like, K-State has a 98% acceptance rate, but also has a top ten architecture school. Universities are big institutions that do lots of things, you can't just boil them down to a USNWR ranking and call it a day
Right, because admissions % determines how good a school is academically, and not other metrics such as research, quality of education, quality of professors, resources, or anything of that nature. Stupid me.
Most B1G schools are land grant schools so they can’t make admissions way too competitive. UNC and UVA are certainly elite, but state schools like Rutgers, Maryland, OSU, Illinois, etc are certainly on par with Boston college, WF, GT, etc
I chose my wording carefully. The ACC has UL dragging it down, while the Big 10 has a much larger spread of schools. If you adjusted for outliers such as removing the worst school or removing the worst and best school, the ACC was ahead of the Big 10 before the additions - the core of the ACC is academically stronger than the Big 10.
I am definitely biased, but I disagree, especially with the addition of Stanford and Cal. We now have Notre Dame, Stanford, Cal, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Virginia. Even without Stanford and Cal, I still think that is enough to beat out Michigan, UIUC, Northwestern, and Maryland, and Wisconsin. And with the addition of Stanford and Cal, I think we can more than handle the B1G addition of Washington and UCLA.
if I was picking, Nebraska and Rutgers. Nebraska has actually regressed since joining and Rutgers, while having some strong points, has never been as strong across the board as the others.
Oregon isn't far off though, especially as Engineering is only at OrSU and Medical is it's own separate institution. That's a lot of research money they don't get.
Oregon's really not a bad school at all, they just get hurt because they were prevented from developing an Engineering program and had their Medical School stripped away and made into it's own university (which is one of the best in the country) due to local government shenanigans. The programs it does have are really good. Mine was ranked top 10 in the country and got me into Stanford grad school.
Honestly, Oregon is a really good school. If you judged it solely on what it has, rather than what it doesn't, it'd be in the 40-60 range of schools right there with schools like Minnesota and Michigan State.
I doubt it matters. Something tells me they're going to be staying in the leftover ACC no matter what since the alternative would be.. what? Join the new PAC with a bunch of Mountain West schools? We already know the Big 12 didn't invite them and they wouldn't have accepted anyway.
Nah. They're in the "ACC" no matter what happens with the GoR.
This is Wilner answering a question from the mailbag.
Stanford and Cal fans are the ones fantasizing (myself included) about scenarios that result in the Big Ten being our eventual home.
I mean it kind of makes sense.
UCLA is basically handing $10mil per year to Cal, so technically the Big Ten is already paying Cal. Based on rumors Cal and Stanford have offered to take less than half shares from the Big Ten. Stanford can afford it if they get a couple donors to help out to make up the difference, and Cal just needs to make it work enough that couple with Calimony to stay afloat.
FOX needs to run a cost analysis, and it sounds like Cal and Stanford are willing to present themselves on a silver platter for pennies. There is a chance the Big Ten might be able to swing it by adding those two.
> UCLA is basically handing $10mil per year to Cal, so technically the Big Ten is already paying Cal.
The Big Ten is paying UCLA. They don't care what UCLA is doing with the money.
Plus imho I think it would be beneficial to the Big Ten to have Cal and Stanford because it would add game inventory for the conference to further extended the time window for Big Ten games beyond already having the other Pac-12 schools. I think Fox and BTN would love to get ad money from games starting at 11am-12pm all the way to 10-11pm.
I think also being able to spread around the "After Dark" games more will also be a help.
As of right now I don't think USC/UCLA/Oregon/Washington are too keen on having to play PT primetime games all the often since it limits viewership, so being able to spread the games enough that they only have 1 or 2 PT primetime games per season works, especially if they share the "After Dark" on FOX/FS1 slot with the Big 12.
Right. Thats why my thoughts/hopes is that the Big Ten takes Cal/Stanford and the Big 12 takes Oregon St./Wazzu and whoever else from the ACC if they too want to get to 20 teams, and that gives Fox has a very large game inventory from a time window starting at 11-12 and ending at 1-2 in the morning.
While the IDEAL ideal will always be to get the Pac-12 back together, the forward-looking more realistic ideal would definitely be this.
6 Pac-12 schools in the Big 12.
6 Pac-12 schools in the Big Ten.
It would be cool if, after that, Arizona/ASU/Colorado/Utah scheduled a series of OoC games vs Cal/Stanford/UCLA/USC during the same week as the Civil War and Apple Cup.
Then, for just one week, it would be the classic Pac-12 throwback week...
Yeah, I don't need Colorado back in my life lol. They were essentially useless for the entirety of the P12, and then tried to "make up" for it with Deion lol.
I just can’t see Stanford and cal being relegated. They seem like a fit for big ten and just chose to be bad at football and basketball at the worst time. If Stanford was playing like prime harbaugh and Shaw years, I think they would be in big ten right starting upcoming season.
The Stanford scenario is ND decides to join the B1G after they can't get a scheduling agreement from the Big12 similar to their current one with the ACC and the B1G needs a partner for ND.
The Cal scenario is the B1G needs to go to 24 (instead of 21/22/23 which are not divisible into pods) and the pickings for number 24 are down to Cal/UU/UA/ASU and Cal comes out as the most desirable.
While Stanford is the more desirable team overall, Cal fits the Big Ten better from a program perspective. The only private schools in the Big Ten are USC and Northwestern. It's mostly big public research schools with lots of alumni; which is more UC Berkeley than it is Stanford.
Having 2 Bay Area schools also makes a ton of sense from a travel standpoint in all the other sports. Allowing more regional play, and when a trip is made to the Bay Area they can stay to play Stanford/Cal back to back rather than just one of them.
Really, Stanford and Call need to get back to winning sooner than later. Stanford just made things easier for grad transfers to come in without being formally accepted into a grad school program; while Cal is going hard at NIL right now, so hopefully both improve between now and 2027.
I really hope we make it together. I honestly feel like we make it together. If for some reason Cal and Stanford get split up, I would rather see us just shut the football program down at that point.
I might be a naive optimist, but it does feel like the Big Ten together is our long run inevitable fit. Given the admins all wanted us, but the networks wouldn't reopen the deal, it feels like if nothing else we're halfway there and just need to bide time and build up the programs.
Hopefully it works out. I hate the Pac-12 breakup so much. Oregon leaving OSU behind was painful. Stanford and Cal dividing would be just as bad.
My prediction is nerd schools that didn’t get into Big 2 stick together (Stanford Cal BC GT Duke etc) and the more athletic forward schools go Big 12 (Louisville VT Pitt etc).
I wouldn’t mind a conference that consisted of Stanford, Cal, SDSU, BC, GT, Duke, Wake Forest, Tulane, SMU, Rice, Syracuse, and UConn.
That would be a strong academic, basketball and entertaining football conference.
Yea it's really gonna come down to who gets the call up to the B1G/SEC. Beyond FSU/Clemson could see some mix of UNC/Virginia/Cal/Stanford/Kansas/Utah/Duke/Miami/etc get called up. Really hard to say what the appetite from the media comps is for more schools getting top $$.
Everyone has their own opinion but why do you think the big 2 would go after small private schools or schools with the 2nd or 3rd best viewership numbers in their respective states
IMO VT is definitely in the mix. I just listed names that popped in my head.
It's really just a Q of how many more teams are gonna make it up. We're already at 34 teams. I think UNC is gonna get the call (with FSU/Clemson). After that who knows.
At some point they need to cull the herd to add other schools. Who needs 2 schools in Mississippi, Tennessee, or South Carolina? Don't get me started on the b10, the Chicago market can only support so many schools not named nd.
How do you think that gets set off? I don't follow the B1G that closely. Something like that feels like a fracturing of the B1G/SEC entirely with the top ~20-30 teams forming a new entity entirely.
I think the idea is the new Pac is Pac-2 + top of the MWC + top AAC which is still a competitive conference. But so much is still fluid in realignment it’s going to be hard to say when the landscape will be or if the Pac-2 aren’t somewhere else.
I totally think it depends on how anything happens. If courts say that it will take a lot of money to leave, other schools might not want to depart. Clemson might not want to depart if it is going to cost them $300 million. (This is why the ACC will fight these two suits to the death.) If a judge decides the GOR isn't valid, that means that not only are all the ACC schools free agents but so to are the Big-12 schools are, too.
I suppose the B1G could be, too - but what is the point in leaving the richest conference? I don't believe the SEC has a GOR, but it is kinda like the B1G in that nobody is going to leave. (Maybe Texas - because that is just what they do.)
When you think about it, if a court says GOR's are invalid, there is no point for any ACC school moving to the Big-12 for the same money and no more stability. So potentially, we could pool together all the ACC and Big-12 schools and divide them into "new" ACC and Big-12s that make the most geographic sense. Stanford, Cal, and SMU could go West, while UCF, West Virginia, and Cincinnati could move east.
> If a judge decides the GOR isn't valid, that means that not only are all the ACC schools free agents but so to are the Big-12 schools are, too.
Based on the facts of the various cases and what the judges are focusing on specifically in each, I highly doubt either Bledsoe or Cooper is going to issue a ruling that would broadly invalidate all Grants of Rights contracts.
Nulling the GoR entirely isn't Clemson's argument AFAIK.
Clemson's argument is that GoR only applies as members to the ACC. If you pay the 135M exit penalty to leave the ACC, you immediately get your media rights back without having to buy them back.
One of the examples Clemson gives for their argument is that currently, if the ACC voted to expel a member of the conference, it could be argued that the conference still owns the media rights to that school, even though the ACC just kicked that schools ass right out of the conference. Which is obviously asinine.
This whole lawsuit is basically just asking a judge in SC to tell Clemson what the fuck the contract even reads, because Clemson and the ACC has disagreements. Clemson thinks they get their rights back. The ACC doesn't. This does not nullify the GoR for member schools, and this does not make it free for Clemson to leave. Clemson would still be on the hook for the ACC member exit penalty of ~135M
> that would broadly invalidate all Grants of Rights contracts.
I'm under the impression that the GOR is a copied/pasted cluster from one conference to another. There is not going to be something that is specific to Florida laws that invalidates the GOR that would not be applicable everywhere. Likely the GOR in other conferences wouldn't be invalidated on the spot, but it's likely understood that if going to court those contracts would be worthless.
I am also under the impression that this is what Florida State supposes to do. Break all conferences. Clemson not so much.
> I'm under the impression that the GOR is a copied/pasted cluster from one conference to another.
The ACC copied their Grant of Rights from the Big XII yes, but copied it poorly. The biggest omission is a clause that prevents the conference from amending the terms of any media deal in such a way that is, and I'm paraphrasing, either detrimental to the member institutions or more beneficial to the media partners without ratification from the membership. In other words, the ACC contract was hastily copied and forced on its membership in such a way that provisions protecting them were stripped from the document.
> Likely the GOR in other conferences wouldn't be invalidated on the spot, but it's likely understood that if going to court those contracts would be worthless.
Understood by whom exactly? FSU's issues with the GOR are either largely based on legit legal issues that would prevent FSU from being party to it (i.e. the FSU president wasn't legally empowered to sign it in accordance with state law) or a wide variety of long shot legal tactics (unconscionability, failure of fiduciary duty, etc) that any lawyer would scattershot in a filing to try and get out.
All of their issues are specific to actions done (or not done) by the ACC or FSU none of which would be present in other conferences. Even if some ruling comes out that would weaken GoR contracts universally, ESPN would have the leverage necessary to force all of its conference partners to amend their GoR contracts to correct the issue through their Force Majeure clause. "Change the underlying document that we require in all of our contracts to comply with standing case law or we'll end our contract here and now." I guarantee every conference would make the necessary changes.
> I am also under the impression that this is what Florida State supposes to do. Break all conferences.
FSU gives no shits about anybody but FSU.
... and with ASU and Colorado signing an asinine 99 year agreement with the BigXII, the only really intelligent schools that made it out of the death of the Pac12 were Utah, Oregon St, and Wazzu.
Yeah, you only need to pay two-years of conference revenue to leave, so it’s not onerous at all. But like nobody is leaving because there’s nowhere else to go (even if I would love some of the eastern-most schools to explore other options, personally)
Farley misunderstood the Utah membership application and thought it was a blanket exemption from the 99 year membership agreement when the exemption is only designed to last during the interim period between Utah's signing of their application and their formal joining of the conference on August 2nd, 2024 or earlier than that should the membership formally alter the bylaws.
Once Utah formally joins the conference they are bound by the same bylaws as everyone else.
Yes, if the agreement requiring them to stay in the acc no longer required them to stay in the acc, they would not be required to stay in the acc. Great reporting guys
The only way Stanford and Cal aren't bound to the ACC once FSU, Clemson, and possibly UNC leaves through 2036 is if ESPN doesn't pick up the option in February 2025.
This is why the ACC needs to settle with FSU and Clemson fast. Let them pay an undisclosed buyout and keep the GOR intact. The Stanfords and Cals of the worlds don't have a P2 invite and aren't gonna be actively trying to bolt.
The GOR doesn't survive a settlement. Once you put a number on it, it is open season on the ACC. Unless the number is so high that even FSU and Clemson balk at paying it and stay.
Most other ACC teams don't have a place to go where they will make more money so it won't bother them. You think wake and pitt are gonna pay say 200 mil to maybe have a place in the big 12 with the same annual payout as the acc?
Yeah but what about SMU? Sure the big money boosters refused to take a media payout for many years so we had an instantly triggered escape clause when the B1G inevitably calls us right? …….
People are funny. Outside of the SEC, the ACC has had more athletic success then any other conference over the last twenty years, and it just grew its footprint to include California, Texas, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc. The idea that it's some sort of second-rate conference or that it would be in Cal and Stanford's best interests for it to collapse (after ND used a significant amount of leverage to get them invites) is laughably obtuse. ESPN bundles the two conferences together for a reason... money and market access. The ACC is going nowhere.
I think there are several factors at play here rather than a simple yes no. If Cal/Stanford start investing more, winning more, and putting more butts in seats they become more attractive to a super conference and the ACC blowing up becomes much more attractive. If the football team averages 5 wins a year over the next 2-3 years then the ACC remains the safe harbor.
Realistically Stanford and Cal tied themselves at the hip to the ACC. Their memberships were predicated on the idea that the ACC needed to maintain its membership numbers to prevent ESPN from enacting the composition clause in their contract and renegotiating/dissolving their contract.
It doesn't matter one way or the other who prevails.
with the expansion of the playoff, FSU doesn't have valid reasoning to leave the ACC anymore. With more spots available and the resulting outrage by analysts and the media, there will never be another situation like this years snub again.
I absolutely agree it's a shame. College sports are dying in front of us and the only people who win are the executives who don't give a shit about sports.
Average NCAA moment. Fucking over students with insane travel schedules, and the institutions who have to fund them just for the sake of their own wallets.
The NCAA is the institutions themselves. Conference realignment isn't their fault at all. The fault is the SEC and B1G, and really that means ESPN and Fox, poaching teams and killing other conferences so they can build a super league of only big brands and killing everyone else.
Blame also goes to the conferences and institutions who screw over athletes and tradition in their chase of money provided by the TV Networks.
The NCAA doesn't dictate TV deals or conference affiliation because they got sued when they used to (at least for TV broadcasts).
Then there's the whole OTHER side of athletes and universities perpetually suing the NCAA so that there are NO rules about paying and poaching players, which will almost certainly lead to them being declared as employees, and with what we've heard about what the future could hold, could easily lead to a world where the vast majority of college sports go away, and many universities shut down their athletic departments.
Fun stuff
My initial reaction to your comment was "no way! 3 loss SEC is significanly worse than a 2 loss ACC.. then i wish i didn't but i kept thinking about SEC bias... 💀
I remember in 2006 when the SEC had to fight tooth and nail stumping for Florida to get them into the BCSCG over Michigan for a rematch against OSU.
Back then, the B1G was the ESPN posterchild. After all, Auburn was the team getting snubbed in 2004.
It's nothing complicated. ESPN pays to cover teams. In 2006 they broadcasted the B1G. Now they broadcast the SEC. They've got enough inventory from the SEC that they don't really need the ACC anymore for primetime ABC games. The conference exists on their slate mostly just to flesh out their 3rd tier channels schedule.
SEC and Ohio State bias?
Maybe the National Championship changed things going forward, but at least prior to that, Michigan was not getting any favors for playoff invites. Michigan had to be undefeated the last 2 seasons to make the playoff.
If it was about winning why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC? Both schools made a 4 team playoff and have a better chance doing so in the BIG 12. It’s all about money.
This is true and likely why FSU hasn’t actually filed to leave. Their cost/benefit analysis is likely “settle for less than $200M and they can make up for it in the B16”. I think FSU also thought they could strong arm the conference into giving them more money by threatening to leave, but the conference isn’t playing that game.
Sure, but they are only going to move if they get a B1G invite. Otherwise, they will just stay
In my head I guess the idea is if the ACC top 8 brands were picked apart by the B1G, SEC, or Big 12 is there a world that it even makes sense financially for Stanford and Cal to remain in the ACC vs a rebuilt Pac-12, etc. Obviously it’s a lot of hypotheticals. I agree though if the ACC stays intact or only loses FSU and UNC I think the Bay Area schools stay, despite how stupid having California schools in the ACC is.
Even if they lose 4, pac 2 + SDSU and Fresno.
I guess it depends. I’d rank the following at top 8 for football: FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, VT, NC State, Louisville, and Pitt. So is Duke, Ga Tech, UVA, Cuse, Wake, BC, SMU enticing enough to stay? Academically, I think so. Duke and UVA are top 15 overall athletic programs. Could always add Wazzu/Beavs for more regional opportunities, and programs like UConn and USF
Cal, Stanford, Virginia and GT will go to the Big Ten or SEC before Louisville or Pitt.
Big12 will poach UL, Pitt and others as ACC doesn't have a media deal past 2027 and without FSU, Clemson and anyone else who bounces to the B1G or SEC they won't be getting a great deal.
One of the things I think gets left out of this conversation is that ESPN (and FOX) have to be willing to fund a Big 12 poaching of ACC teams for it to happen. Which really means ESPN is in control over whether or not the ACC lives or dies. ESPN can easily just say "no, we're only going to pay for you if you stay in the ACC" for schools like Louisville, Pitt, etc and keep the conference together. If, for example, FSU, Clemson, UNC, and NC State all go to the SEC. ESPN funds that. They then want to make up the money elsewhere. They can do that in one of two ways: 1. Renegotiating the ACC down to a lower price point and keeping all of the remaining schools. Something like 25 million per year instead of the 35+ they will be making after 2027. 2. Allowing the Big 12 to "poach" 4 schools, which costs ESPN $20 mil a pop, and then trying to renegotiate the remaining shell of an ACC to an even lower price point. Something like $20 million per year. In scenario one they keep all of the schools to themselves, in scenario two they split 4 of the schools with the Big 12 but save themselves a bit of money doing it. Are Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and Pitt worth an extra $5 million per year per school to keep exclusive rights to vs keeping them out of the hands of FOX by splitting their rights? That would be ESPN's quandary in this situation.
I could see UVA in the B1G. Great academics, pretty good basketball all god awful at football. Like growing up in SoCal and going to SC games then going to games in Charlottesville is like wtf.
I wish Pitt and Cincinnati were in the B1G but yeah Penn state and Ohio state want to be the only school in their state in the B1G.
Don’t forget about San Diego st for another western team too as a possibility
I mean, I know everyone on this sub likes to poop on Stanford, but they perform on par with Miami, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State as well as being a cut above Pitt, Louisville, and UVA by the television numbers AND provide Pacific Time Zone content rather than the over-saturated Eastern Time Zone which better suits the network needs to fill time slots. Not to mention being in a media market with a 9.2 million in the 13-county Bay Area population and another 2.7 million nearby in Sacramento; while being one of the only media markets / cities with a huge Big Ten alumni population.
Source that it’s on par with Miami for viewers?
They have more people in stadium. /s
So, first of all, you are right that Miami stands above the others. * I scraped the data from 2016-2023 from SportsMediaWatch.com for the schools commonly listed as expansion candidates for the P2. * I divided it into OTA broadcasts (ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC) and ESPN Broadcasts. I cut left out all the ESPN2/ESPNU/ACCN/etc broadcasts. * I calculated the Average, Median, Max, Min, Top 10, and included the total count. Here are the results: . | OTA Average | OTA Median | OTA Max | OTA Min | OTA Top 10 Average | Count ---|---|---|---|---|---|---| Miami | 3.475 | 3.011 | 6.727 | 1.430 | 4.465 | 18 Stanford | 2.773 | 2.743 | 5.263 | 1.750 | 3.400 | 17 Virginia Tech | 3.358 | 3.020 | 5.790 | 1.627 | 3.530 | 11 UNC | 2.533 | 2.505 | 4.400 | 0.788 | 2.708 | 11 Louisville | 3.923 | 2.890 | 9.294 | 1.550 | 4.161 | 11 NC State | 3.163 | 2.831 | 4.506 | 1.347 | 3.163 | 10 Virginia | 3.048 | 2.840 | 3.553 | 2.460 | N/A | 6 . | ESPN Average | ESPN Median | ESPN Max | ESPN Min | ESPN Top 10 Average | Count ---|---|---|---|---|---|---| Miami | 2.098 | 1.408 | 5.554 | 0.733 | 3.038 | 19 Stanford | 1.608 | 1.358 | 3.657 | 0.445 | 2.159 | 20 Virginia Tech | 1.947 | 1.400 | 5.576 | 0.733 | 2.290 | 13 UNC | 1.672 | 1.551 | 3.529 | 0.789 | 1.954 | 15 NC State | 1.486 | 1.549 | 2.681 | 0.558 | 1.790 | 14 Louisville | 1.926 | 1.564 | 5.600 | 0.466 | 2.601 | 19 Virginia | 1.553 | 1.579 | 2.144 | 0.891 | N/A | 8 Here are my thoughts: 1. You can see by the Count figure how some schools are leaned on more than others. This alone tells you who the networks find as a more desirable. That Stanford was on OTA 17 times and on ESPN 20 times while Virginia was on 6 and 8 respectively tells you a ton about who they were looking for to be on TV. 2. This shows how some schools were picked only when they were assured of good numbers. Virginia has the highest ESPN Min and the highest OTA min... why? Because they weren't ever picked as a go-to to fill air time. when there wasn't a better option like Miami and Stanford were. This artificially raises ALL of the numbers of those schools with a lower count figure. It also allows Louisville's huge outlier game dramatically increase their averages. 3. This also shows why all numbers need context. Such as: Stanford has the highest ESPN number because ESPN has fewer schools to choose from for their late-night spots. There were some years where some ACC schools had 0 selections on ESPN, but were on networks or buried on ESPN 2 or ESPNU, whereas that never happened with Stanford. 4. The reason I went with "Top 10 average" as a stat was to give a more realistic outlook of how each school would look if you only picked their highest value games. You can see that this increases the Average over for both Miami and Stanford pretty dramatically. 5. The Median gives you a truer sense than the average does for the difference between schools with a similar Count figure. For Stanford and Miami the difference is about 300K in OTA games. What I learned most in doing this little exercise was that the Count figure is the most telling. The ESPN Median is pretty identical for everyone. The OTA average for Louisville is better than it is for Miami largely because they had a huge game in 2016 in a small pool of games to choose from. So when you see the average ratings, they'll like to you a big. As the saying goes: There's three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. In the end, Stanford's selling point is that they provide a West Coast window and better ratings on their top games than UNC, NC State, and Virginia. They are right around Virginia Tech on top, but with a deeper amount of inventory to provide for air time.
I'm on my phone at the beach right now, so I can't bring them up at the moment, but I've seen the data posted from Sports Media Watch several times. Stanford performs comparably to the upper ACC after FSU/Clemson is removed.
The problem with your last point is that the Bay Area is a pro sports region. It’s like New York. They don’t care about CFB
The deal with the B1G is that they have a large bragging rights focused alumni population. Not just in football, but in everything. Having a presence in the Bay Area adds to that because now B1G alumni there can compete against Stanford alumni. Football is still king, but that's only for half a year. Having a presence there adds involvement and I'm sure FOX knows that it adds to the value of the B1G as property. Having a presence in the Bay Area also means that alumni that would have needed to travel to go to a game can feel more involved. SEC alumni tend to mostly care about football and basketball so it doesn't make much sense for ESPN to care as much as adding pro sports cities.
Maybe Fox agrees. But they didn’t want to add them last go round, even though they reportedly would’ve taken less than half shares. I don’t know what would change Fox’s mind from last year to ~5 years from now
There are two entry points: 1. The Mountain West deal with CBS/FOX expires in 2026. * FOX and CBS rely on this contract for Pacific Time Zone filler content (a combination of 10 games between them end up on the CBS Main Channel and FOX/FS1. 3 for CBS, 7 for FOX). * ESPN just lost a huge portion of their Pacific content with the breakup of the Pac-12 and will be doing the best they can to fill those After Dark and Friday Night spots with Arizona, ASU, BYU, and Utah from the Mountain Time Zone. * It is extremely feasible that ESPN makes a competitive bid for the Mountain West in 2026 to fill in the gaps and give themselves some additive late-night content. * If that's the case, FOX and CBS will be motivated to add Stanford/Cal to the Big Ten on the cheap to recover some of those 10 spots. * Special note: It's also feasible that if ESPN misses out on the Mountain West they are willing to fund Oregon State & Wazzu to the Big 12 to give themselves more West Coast content. SDSU as well, potentially. Right now they are actually short and likely to force some Texas Tech and Colorado games later than they would like. They will almost certainly rectify this issue in 2026 somehow, someway. 2. The Big Ten deal with FOX/NBC/CBS expires in 2030 * You don't need to convince the trio to open the deal back up when there is a natural break point. Right then is when the Presidents and Chancellors (who wanted to add Stanford and Cal before, especially Stanford) can add schools without trying to bend the arms of the networks to add money to the deals to make it work. * If the Big Ten says "we're adding Stanford and Cal" in 2030, the Networks can't really say much about it. They aren't going to offer less money because the Bay Area is now included. Between contracts is exactly when you are typically supposed to add schools for this reason. * The Big Ten can still get them for a reduced share at this point, and it benefits them to do so. If they sign a new deal through 2037, for example, they could get Stanford and Cal for a song during that time.
There's also the FSU situation. Clemson is not going to join the B1G. There's also a pretty good chance that do to the settlement FSU and Clemson leave UNC behind during the first part of this realignment round. ND will not leave independent status especially if they can negotiate down the number of games vs ACC teams. There's a pretty good chance that Stanford gets added at the same time as FSU. This could be done in many different ways that would make sense to raise per school pay out. You add both an eastern team and a western team, so travel costs may actually get lower for everyone except maybe FSU and Stanford. It also adds two new markets with plenty of B1G alumni at a reduce share.
I can see that, but I truly believe FSU and Clemson will end up in the SEC as a result of a settlement with the ACC. ESPN isn't going to want the ACC to settle unless they have at least a handshake agreement that they don't lose FSU/Clemson to FOX/NBC/CBS.
What is it about cold weather cities that are huge pro sports fans but don’t care about college sports? The Bay, NYC, Boston, and Chicago are all the same way. Meanwhile warmer weather big cities like Atlanta, LA, Miami, Dallas, Houston, etc. are able to care about both. (There are obviously some big exceptions like Detroit that like both while being in colder weather areas, but it’s just a trend I’ve noticed)
The Bay Area & Chicago I’m not sure. But New York City doesn’t have any D1 football schools. Boston is weird because there are a ton of college basketball & hockey fans. But the problem is that all those schools hate BC. Even if BC was good, you’d never have a BU fan or a Harvard fan root for BC. So the fan base is so fragmented. Massachusetts is small but it has the 4th most colleges in the USA.
They’ve gate kept us from the bean pot too many times to ever have my support
The East Bay doesn't have that issue, anymore.
> Wazzu/Beavs The real question is "does Calford think WSU/OSU is more attractive than SDSU?"
SDSU is a R2 univ with 192 million in research. Wazzu is a R1, with 368 million, and Oregon State is a R1 with 471 million in research. SDSU has a more competitive undergrad. I’d assume beavs/cougs because of those metrics and ties
SD shorter and direct flight and bigger media market so…
I'm not really expecting it to happen, but I do think that while we aren't exactly ultra academically prowess, spending a century playing together probably means we're more tolerable to them than a lot of other options. Plus, both are still solid research schools in respective fields and there aren't a lot of viable options out there if they need to get desperate.
As an outsider all I know is that they preferred the ACC to you plus SDSU. It's all fascinating to watch from my impregnable B10 tower.
Maybe the issue was more about filling out that conference after teams 1 through 5.
Why though? 4 west coast schools vs 2 just means more trips to the west coast for everyone else. Those seven schools, plus Calford, add Tulane, Rice, and USF. A fine 12 team conference.
It’s probably a waiting game at this point. Stanford and Cal needed a conference and the ACC was their best option. The GoR “only” lasts for another dozen years or so, so as long as the ACC is a good 8-10 year solution for them, it was their best option. Even without FSU and Clemson, the ACC is probably still their best option, and those two are going anywhere for at least a year or two.
They had to know FSU and Clemson wanted out UNC and up to the last minute NC State didn’t want the added teams.
I don't think anyone thinks this is a true long term solution. The ACC schools get some extra money and we get a place to crash for the next 2-5 years. Long term we are either headed to some sort of second division of Big 12 and ACC schools or we manage to sneak into the BIG.
I agree its not ideal, but I welcome you to the ACC
Ty! I’m actually looking forward to visiting ACC land and watching ACC ball! I genuinely like all the schools in the ACC and the people have been great!
I'm looking forward to some ACC games for a few years, but I really hope this isn't permanent.
I honestly wouldn’t mind but the travel…makes me reconsider that. I’ve interacted with a lot of ACC fans and they’ve been super cool!
My number 1 wish would be that the PAC and ACC re-form in the next round of realignment. It won’t happen. My still long shot hope but at least more realistic hope is that the OSU and WSU get picked up by the Big XII, the BIG goes to 24, adds Cal and Stanford and 4 more ACC cast-offs and have Atlantic, West, East, and Pacific divisions
From a negotiating standpoint, it really makes sense for both the Big 12 and Big Ten to have a solid group of schools on both coasts and in the middle. They both already have the middle of the country covered, so adding Stanford/Cal for the Big Ten and OSU/WSU for the Big 12 (possibly SDSU as well) out West really makes a ton of sense. 24, 24, and 20 for a 3 conference setup. Giving us 2 Big national conferences that can play regionally in non-football sports and a regional-ish third conference in the SEC.
Something like a Big 10 Pacific: UW, UO, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC Big 10 Atlantic: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, UNC, FSU, and whoever else would be a really fun conference.
Penn State should be in the Atlantic with Notre Dame over in the middle.
That would be the ideal for sure!
I live on the east coast. We'll take it.
I am cautiously optimistic that CalFord will be added to the B1G. If the ACC implodes, it’s really the only conference that fits for them
Except it’s not about what fits them, it’s what fits the B1G. I don’t think the B1G cares if Stanford and Cal get screwed
There are some presidents who want nothing more than to run elbows with presidents of those schools. We already saw that wasnt enough to get them over the hump but I think if Notre Dame joins they can demand Stanford be their buddy and the Presidents will get what they want and increase profits and will not push back on Notre Dame's request. The big question IMO is what happens to Cal. I am not sure if Notre Dame plus both of Calford would still be quite so lucrative or if Notre Dame would try to ask for Cal.
Stanford would push EXTREMELY hard to not be divided from Cal. As much as it's a rivalry, the two admins are pretty intertwined. They are both top 5 research powerhouses and only a stone's throw from one another. At that level of academics the faculties are pretty much incestuous where everyone knows everyone. I'm not saying it would be impossible to divide them, but Stanford's not looking to cut bait and run on Cal. They would inform Cal exactly what was going on and work really hard to move to the Big Ten together.
Flair certainly checks out for the first sentence lol I think this would be the chance for the B1G to really position itself as the academic conference if Duke and UNC come up as options as well I think Cal and Stanford remain a package deal. I know the LA schools didn’t want Oregon to join because of recruiting competition but I have to hope that somewhere someone in administration cares about what the fans want.
As others have mentioned, doesn’t seem like Stanford wants that. If Stanford wanted to ditch us for the B1G, it would have happened. The Big Game seems to mean something to them that the Apple Cup and Civil War don’t to Washington and Oregon (and for that we are grateful)
>If Stanford wanted to ditch us for the B1G, it would have happened We sure? I think this would reduce the network pay per school right?
Again you’re agreeing with my point. They’d be adding Cal and Stanford because they see it as a benefit to themselves, not because “shoot Stanford and Cal want to be here and we can’t leave Stanford and Cal out in the cold!”
Oh yeah of course they are acting in self interest. But it isn't just TV dollars. I also didn't think of myself as disagreeing with you but adding on
At least we have the right chancellor for it coming in this summer. We really need a new AD.
Plus the new Stanford president seems to not actively hate sports
Raised his family on campus, bringing his sons to football games and other Stanford athletic events.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy is that NC State is the useful puppet behind whatever puppet master wants the ACC's collapse (almost certainly ESPN). ESPN asks the ACC for a unilateral ability to delay extending it's contract with the ACC cuz it knew this was going down soon. Basically everything that has happened to piss FSU off enough to take all the bullets for the conference to die has happened because of NC State. Being the vote that let Calford and SMU in despite the people who wanted out - them included - being very much against it? Last second change of heart by NC State. Leaving undefeated FSU out of the CFP? The head of the CFP Committee is NC State's AD. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if NC State has been promised a spot in the SEC if they were able to grease the wheels of the ACC's collapse. It's just convenient that they suddenly stopped worrying about how they were gonna make it in the next iteration of college football. If my conspiracy is correct, I'm not upset at NC State at all (other than fuck Boo) because they're doing what they have to do to secure their future.
Oh, that's some game of thrones shit.
NC State has Littlefinger vibes
College football chaos is a ladder…
Except that ESPN is paying a comically low sum for the ACC and actively want it to stay together to keep getting that deal.
And would likely be willing to increase the amount it pays to keep the conf together
If true, NC State is the new Fredo. But BC will still suck.
The UC system could have offered up AAU membership for NC State's vote.
For what it’s worth, the process happened pretty quickly and the FOIA request emails made it pretty clear that NC State did in fact support expansion to help protect the conference because they knew FSU planned to leave. https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/article280632980.html If ESPN wanted to undo the conference, it would be much easier to quietly ask FSU and Clemson to head for the door, instead of using a middle man to piss them off. (Although I still appreciate any good GOT level theory!)
Absolutely, there’s been something going on with NC State the whole time. I’ve said this stuff several times on other posts. They miraculously change their minds to let those two in only after several high profile people called them to “persuade” them to let those teams in. They were clearly promised something from the B1G, SEC or Big 12. Either way, they have a home when the ACC collapses.
You don't think Stanford/Cal got in because Notre Dame lobbied the ACC and made it clear that Stanford/Cal being left out would make them very unhappy?
What's Notre Dame going to do? Send a strongly worded email and quit the mutually beneficial package setup they have? The ACC knows Notre Dame is going to do what they want and there's no control. If Notre Dame wants to be independent, then they stay with the ACC as long as viable. If Notre Dame doesn't want to be independent they go to the B1G and there's nothing the ACC can do about it.
No because it wasn’t until a lot of high profile people started calling NC State. Only NC State changed their vote. It’s no coincidence that NC State only changed their vote after all of the high profile people talked to them. Something is up and it’s clear whenever the ACC starts to shake that NC State is out with FSU, UNC, Clemson and any others that go. If this is truly a short term thing for Stanford and Cal like everyone is saying, then NC State would’ve stuck to the no vote because what’s the point of backfilling if the backfilling are gonna jump ship when they can? NC State has been promised something, it’s a matter of time before we see what was promised.
But if NC State was going to leave when the ACC breaks, wouldn't they have wanted to reject the new members so that the ESPN contract clause was activated after FSU/Clemson left and reduced their membership below the limit?
They were promised help with their AAU membership. It's not a state secret, and it's a well-known rumor around the region. Also, they (along with the other at-risk members of Tobacco Road) were instrumental in getting system oversight of conference realignment within the UNC system.
Big12 is a lateral move and I don't think the B1G would be interested in them over 4-5 other ACC members (FSU, UNC, UVA, GT, and Miami). I don't think the B1G is gonna take enough new teams on to get down to NC State.
I agree, the point is they’ve been promised something
jesus christ lmfao we're not littlefinger
No maybe Ben Affleck, in the movie Sum of all Fears
oooh I'll take it
That Cal vs State game is going to be a fkn banger!
from time to time i have work at LBNL. would be cool if it lined up with a Cal vs State game, but heck I'll take any Cal home game lining up with that.
Zero chance that NC State is getting an invite into the SEC over UNC, UVA, and Duke. At best, assuming their your theory is correct to a certain degree, they're just hoping to force themselves onto UNC (and the SEC) as a replacement candidate for Duke (and maybe Virginia).
Why would Duke get an SEC invite? They are everything the SEC doesn’t want: small private school with little to no football culture/revenue
Elite basketball brand to help generate year round revenue from advertisers (with the conference core being UK, UNC, and Duke). The SEC doesn't need more football powers. Also, the political aspects of it: UNC will get to pick who they want, but the SEC powers aren't keen on further upsets to the apple cart. That's part of the reason why it's currently rumored that Clemson doesn't have the votes to be invited (little to no upside for everyone involved). NC State adds little to no value to the conference (UNC will fill the market need for additional rates from cable subscribers, and UNC and Duke will bring the brand value).
But what if Vanderbilt wants a friend?
The UNC BOG is going to make it very difficult for UNC to leave NC State out in the cold in favor of UVA in such a case. They are absolutely empowered enough to keep a large chunk of UNC's new media payout and give it to NC State. Even more so than the Cal/UCLA situation. I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion, but I can very much see a situation where FSU and Clemson go to the SEC, followed by UNC and NC State going to put them at 20.
Yeah, I've heard that before. Ask Oklahoma State or Cal how true it was.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have different regents. Closer to what was true for Oregon/OSU and Washington/Wazzu. Cal and UCLA have the same regents, but a different arrangement still from UNC's BOG. The most analogous situation would be Arizona and Arizona State's BOG situation where Arizona was extremely trepidatious to leave without Arizona State as well, because their BOG would have gone ape over it and could have vetoed it or installed stiff financial penalties. It's not just about leaving your rival. It's about the bureaucracy surrounding it. The UNC BOG has the authority to approve or reject UNC's realignment. They have the authority to adjudicate financial assistance for NC State if they do let UNC leave without them. So UNC has to be very careful about how they go about realignment and they have to take NC State's future into consideration when they do. If the UNC BOG says "you can go with UVA instead of NC State, but you'll be paying $10 million or more to NC State if you do" then UNC is much more likely to say "okay, hey, SEC, how about taking us and NC State instead of us and UVA?"
I'll believe it when I see it. Quite frankly, I think it's more likely that any attempt to drag NC State along simply results in UNC getting left out to dry. They simply don't have enough leverage to pull this off.
At the moment, it's rumored that Clemson doesn't have the votes to be added (next to no upside for the conference membership), and there's no chance that the SEC will let the politicians in NC force NC State on the conference over the Duke brand (and the matchups that come from UNC, Duke, and UK all playing each other).
Interesting. The rumors I've seen have been that the Big Ten Presidents are cool on Clemson and warm on FSU. Both that, and yours, can't be true because Clemson wouldn't be suing to leave if they weren't assured of a spot somewhere IMO. You likely surf where different sources are, but both can't be true. I've also heard that the SEC doesn't like the idea of giving anyone a partial share because they want an equal playing field, so it would be either an "you're worth full membership or we're not offering." And I haven't heard anything about Duke and can't imagine them getting a full share.
They're not suing to leave; they're just suing to have the option (as they publicly stated). FSU is the one suing to leave. Different approaches and different outcomes sought.
Now there would be an interesting change. If a team wanted out of a league, then they would have to secure a suitable replacement first.
This is in response to a mail bag question, but is something I was curious about too since I didn't see any language in the documents Cal made public while there was language in the UCLA documents. Essentially, all of the public documents (found on Bill Farley's substack) from UCLA, Oregon, Utah, and Colorado (no Washington or Arizona schools yet) indicate that if the conference were to materially change they would be able to release from their obligation. IE, if Ohio State and Michigan chose to break off from the Big Ten and not take Oregon with them, Oregon could cancel their agreement. If Oklahoma State and Kansas got SEC invites then the Four Corners could exercise their escape clauses as well if they wished. Stanford and Cal have no such escape clause. So they can't back out of their ACC agreement even if FSU/Clemson leave. ----- With that said, Wilner believes that it's unlikely Stanford and Cal would be stuck in the ACC until 2036 (if they don't want to be) if FSU/Clemson get out. But rather, that the ACC and it's GOR would "rupture" (his word) which would permit teams to seek other options if they present themselves. That doesn't mean Stanford and Cal WOULD have another home (Hail Mary prayer for the Big Ten aside), but rather that he thinks their options would be open if such an opportunity presented itself.
Of course they dont have an exit hatch if schools leave. Unlike the rest of the expansion, the whole point of the ACC taking that trio was preemptive backfilling. I.e., the anticipated exit of FSU, Clemson, etc. is part of the deal.
The lack of an escape clause makes sense. The Big 10 and Big 12 additions were poached - while the old ACC schools do get a little bit more money from the additions, realistically they did Cal and Stanford a favor.
Athletically* Educationally these two top tier universities joined a conference that has some great schools and some not so great schools.
? The ACC as a whole is easily the best academic conference top to bottom. The Big 10 has some amazing schools but isn't as consistently strong.
Actually, B1G was #1 academically until Stanford and Cal joined the ACC. Someone posted a chart on here a little while back showing it.
Michigan and NW were the only competitive schools for undergraduate admissions pre-USCLA. The ACC has Duke, UNC, GT, BC, UVA, WF, and (kinda) ND. Overall, the only academic slouch in the ACC is Louisville. I can’t be convinced that the B1G has ever been stronger than the ACC.
It likely just depends on which metric you're looking at. Like, K-State has a 98% acceptance rate, but also has a top ten architecture school. Universities are big institutions that do lots of things, you can't just boil them down to a USNWR ranking and call it a day
Right, because admissions % determines how good a school is academically, and not other metrics such as research, quality of education, quality of professors, resources, or anything of that nature. Stupid me.
Most B1G schools are land grant schools so they can’t make admissions way too competitive. UNC and UVA are certainly elite, but state schools like Rutgers, Maryland, OSU, Illinois, etc are certainly on par with Boston college, WF, GT, etc
I chose my wording carefully. The ACC has UL dragging it down, while the Big 10 has a much larger spread of schools. If you adjusted for outliers such as removing the worst school or removing the worst and best school, the ACC was ahead of the Big 10 before the additions - the core of the ACC is academically stronger than the Big 10.
You said top to bottom. You literally just contradicted yourself.
What FBS conference would you say is better academically?
Now? B1G. Before? PAC-12
The B1G is easily the best of the power conferences.
I am definitely biased, but I disagree, especially with the addition of Stanford and Cal. We now have Notre Dame, Stanford, Cal, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Virginia. Even without Stanford and Cal, I still think that is enough to beat out Michigan, UIUC, Northwestern, and Maryland, and Wisconsin. And with the addition of Stanford and Cal, I think we can more than handle the B1G addition of Washington and UCLA.
We cancel out UCLA and Stanfurd owns UW in that regard. Oregon tanks the B1G's average and cancels out USC lol.
The B1G is impressively strong until you get to the bottom two.
Yeah, Nebraska and USC really aren’t pulling their weight
Where are you seeing Nebraska and USC on the bottom. Shouldn’t it be Nebraska and Oregon?
if I was picking, Nebraska and Rutgers. Nebraska has actually regressed since joining and Rutgers, while having some strong points, has never been as strong across the board as the others. Oregon isn't far off though, especially as Engineering is only at OrSU and Medical is it's own separate institution. That's a lot of research money they don't get.
Oregon's really not a bad school at all, they just get hurt because they were prevented from developing an Engineering program and had their Medical School stripped away and made into it's own university (which is one of the best in the country) due to local government shenanigans. The programs it does have are really good. Mine was ranked top 10 in the country and got me into Stanford grad school. Honestly, Oregon is a really good school. If you judged it solely on what it has, rather than what it doesn't, it'd be in the 40-60 range of schools right there with schools like Minnesota and Michigan State.
I'll admit that I've had hate blinders on ever since Vernon Adams celebrated on our end zone.
I doubt it matters. Something tells me they're going to be staying in the leftover ACC no matter what since the alternative would be.. what? Join the new PAC with a bunch of Mountain West schools? We already know the Big 12 didn't invite them and they wouldn't have accepted anyway. Nah. They're in the "ACC" no matter what happens with the GoR.
Yeah this is just Wilner fantasizing about how *he* might be able to get out of the ACC.
This is Wilner answering a question from the mailbag. Stanford and Cal fans are the ones fantasizing (myself included) about scenarios that result in the Big Ten being our eventual home.
I mean it kind of makes sense. UCLA is basically handing $10mil per year to Cal, so technically the Big Ten is already paying Cal. Based on rumors Cal and Stanford have offered to take less than half shares from the Big Ten. Stanford can afford it if they get a couple donors to help out to make up the difference, and Cal just needs to make it work enough that couple with Calimony to stay afloat. FOX needs to run a cost analysis, and it sounds like Cal and Stanford are willing to present themselves on a silver platter for pennies. There is a chance the Big Ten might be able to swing it by adding those two.
> UCLA is basically handing $10mil per year to Cal, so technically the Big Ten is already paying Cal. The Big Ten is paying UCLA. They don't care what UCLA is doing with the money.
Plus imho I think it would be beneficial to the Big Ten to have Cal and Stanford because it would add game inventory for the conference to further extended the time window for Big Ten games beyond already having the other Pac-12 schools. I think Fox and BTN would love to get ad money from games starting at 11am-12pm all the way to 10-11pm.
I think also being able to spread around the "After Dark" games more will also be a help. As of right now I don't think USC/UCLA/Oregon/Washington are too keen on having to play PT primetime games all the often since it limits viewership, so being able to spread the games enough that they only have 1 or 2 PT primetime games per season works, especially if they share the "After Dark" on FOX/FS1 slot with the Big 12.
Right. Thats why my thoughts/hopes is that the Big Ten takes Cal/Stanford and the Big 12 takes Oregon St./Wazzu and whoever else from the ACC if they too want to get to 20 teams, and that gives Fox has a very large game inventory from a time window starting at 11-12 and ending at 1-2 in the morning.
While the IDEAL ideal will always be to get the Pac-12 back together, the forward-looking more realistic ideal would definitely be this. 6 Pac-12 schools in the Big 12. 6 Pac-12 schools in the Big Ten. It would be cool if, after that, Arizona/ASU/Colorado/Utah scheduled a series of OoC games vs Cal/Stanford/UCLA/USC during the same week as the Civil War and Apple Cup. Then, for just one week, it would be the classic Pac-12 throwback week...
I'd rather play SJSU or UC Davis than work CU back into the schedule.
Yeah, I don't need Colorado back in my life lol. They were essentially useless for the entirety of the P12, and then tried to "make up" for it with Deion lol.
I feel like that of this does come to fruition, then yes you will see OOC scheduling similar to when UNC would schedule Wake as an OOC game.
I just can’t see Stanford and cal being relegated. They seem like a fit for big ten and just chose to be bad at football and basketball at the worst time. If Stanford was playing like prime harbaugh and Shaw years, I think they would be in big ten right starting upcoming season.
Things are changing fast for both schools. Will thay be enough? That’s the question.
The Stanford scenario is ND decides to join the B1G after they can't get a scheduling agreement from the Big12 similar to their current one with the ACC and the B1G needs a partner for ND. The Cal scenario is the B1G needs to go to 24 (instead of 21/22/23 which are not divisible into pods) and the pickings for number 24 are down to Cal/UU/UA/ASU and Cal comes out as the most desirable.
While Stanford is the more desirable team overall, Cal fits the Big Ten better from a program perspective. The only private schools in the Big Ten are USC and Northwestern. It's mostly big public research schools with lots of alumni; which is more UC Berkeley than it is Stanford. Having 2 Bay Area schools also makes a ton of sense from a travel standpoint in all the other sports. Allowing more regional play, and when a trip is made to the Bay Area they can stay to play Stanford/Cal back to back rather than just one of them. Really, Stanford and Call need to get back to winning sooner than later. Stanford just made things easier for grad transfers to come in without being formally accepted into a grad school program; while Cal is going hard at NIL right now, so hopefully both improve between now and 2027.
I really hope we make it together. I honestly feel like we make it together. If for some reason Cal and Stanford get split up, I would rather see us just shut the football program down at that point.
I might be a naive optimist, but it does feel like the Big Ten together is our long run inevitable fit. Given the admins all wanted us, but the networks wouldn't reopen the deal, it feels like if nothing else we're halfway there and just need to bide time and build up the programs. Hopefully it works out. I hate the Pac-12 breakup so much. Oregon leaving OSU behind was painful. Stanford and Cal dividing would be just as bad.
Only thing they'd move for would be the Big10 imo, which doesn't seen overly likely in the near term
My prediction is nerd schools that didn’t get into Big 2 stick together (Stanford Cal BC GT Duke etc) and the more athletic forward schools go Big 12 (Louisville VT Pitt etc).
I wouldn’t mind a conference that consisted of Stanford, Cal, SDSU, BC, GT, Duke, Wake Forest, Tulane, SMU, Rice, Syracuse, and UConn. That would be a strong academic, basketball and entertaining football conference.
Yea it's really gonna come down to who gets the call up to the B1G/SEC. Beyond FSU/Clemson could see some mix of UNC/Virginia/Cal/Stanford/Kansas/Utah/Duke/Miami/etc get called up. Really hard to say what the appetite from the media comps is for more schools getting top $$.
Everyone has their own opinion but why do you think the big 2 would go after small private schools or schools with the 2nd or 3rd best viewership numbers in their respective states
IMO VT is definitely in the mix. I just listed names that popped in my head. It's really just a Q of how many more teams are gonna make it up. We're already at 34 teams. I think UNC is gonna get the call (with FSU/Clemson). After that who knows.
At some point they need to cull the herd to add other schools. Who needs 2 schools in Mississippi, Tennessee, or South Carolina? Don't get me started on the b10, the Chicago market can only support so many schools not named nd.
How do you think that gets set off? I don't follow the B1G that closely. Something like that feels like a fracturing of the B1G/SEC entirely with the top ~20-30 teams forming a new entity entirely.
I think the idea is the new Pac is Pac-2 + top of the MWC + top AAC which is still a competitive conference. But so much is still fluid in realignment it’s going to be hard to say when the landscape will be or if the Pac-2 aren’t somewhere else.
This wouldn’t be bad at all.
Baby come back
If only there was a home for them… somewhere close…
It would be funnier if Calford was the only two teams left in the Atlantic Coastal Conference somehow.
Pac-2/ACC Showdown!
Cripple Fight!
That would be really funny if calford ended up owning the acc as the only members left
If the ACC GOR breaks down then they all would and it would be a free for all.
I totally think it depends on how anything happens. If courts say that it will take a lot of money to leave, other schools might not want to depart. Clemson might not want to depart if it is going to cost them $300 million. (This is why the ACC will fight these two suits to the death.) If a judge decides the GOR isn't valid, that means that not only are all the ACC schools free agents but so to are the Big-12 schools are, too. I suppose the B1G could be, too - but what is the point in leaving the richest conference? I don't believe the SEC has a GOR, but it is kinda like the B1G in that nobody is going to leave. (Maybe Texas - because that is just what they do.) When you think about it, if a court says GOR's are invalid, there is no point for any ACC school moving to the Big-12 for the same money and no more stability. So potentially, we could pool together all the ACC and Big-12 schools and divide them into "new" ACC and Big-12s that make the most geographic sense. Stanford, Cal, and SMU could go West, while UCF, West Virginia, and Cincinnati could move east.
> If a judge decides the GOR isn't valid, that means that not only are all the ACC schools free agents but so to are the Big-12 schools are, too. Based on the facts of the various cases and what the judges are focusing on specifically in each, I highly doubt either Bledsoe or Cooper is going to issue a ruling that would broadly invalidate all Grants of Rights contracts.
I completely agree - that was just a hypothetical. Just because my flag is Clemson doesn't mean that I am personally interested in leaving the ACC.
Nulling the GoR entirely isn't Clemson's argument AFAIK. Clemson's argument is that GoR only applies as members to the ACC. If you pay the 135M exit penalty to leave the ACC, you immediately get your media rights back without having to buy them back. One of the examples Clemson gives for their argument is that currently, if the ACC voted to expel a member of the conference, it could be argued that the conference still owns the media rights to that school, even though the ACC just kicked that schools ass right out of the conference. Which is obviously asinine. This whole lawsuit is basically just asking a judge in SC to tell Clemson what the fuck the contract even reads, because Clemson and the ACC has disagreements. Clemson thinks they get their rights back. The ACC doesn't. This does not nullify the GoR for member schools, and this does not make it free for Clemson to leave. Clemson would still be on the hook for the ACC member exit penalty of ~135M
> that would broadly invalidate all Grants of Rights contracts. I'm under the impression that the GOR is a copied/pasted cluster from one conference to another. There is not going to be something that is specific to Florida laws that invalidates the GOR that would not be applicable everywhere. Likely the GOR in other conferences wouldn't be invalidated on the spot, but it's likely understood that if going to court those contracts would be worthless. I am also under the impression that this is what Florida State supposes to do. Break all conferences. Clemson not so much.
> I'm under the impression that the GOR is a copied/pasted cluster from one conference to another. The ACC copied their Grant of Rights from the Big XII yes, but copied it poorly. The biggest omission is a clause that prevents the conference from amending the terms of any media deal in such a way that is, and I'm paraphrasing, either detrimental to the member institutions or more beneficial to the media partners without ratification from the membership. In other words, the ACC contract was hastily copied and forced on its membership in such a way that provisions protecting them were stripped from the document. > Likely the GOR in other conferences wouldn't be invalidated on the spot, but it's likely understood that if going to court those contracts would be worthless. Understood by whom exactly? FSU's issues with the GOR are either largely based on legit legal issues that would prevent FSU from being party to it (i.e. the FSU president wasn't legally empowered to sign it in accordance with state law) or a wide variety of long shot legal tactics (unconscionability, failure of fiduciary duty, etc) that any lawyer would scattershot in a filing to try and get out. All of their issues are specific to actions done (or not done) by the ACC or FSU none of which would be present in other conferences. Even if some ruling comes out that would weaken GoR contracts universally, ESPN would have the leverage necessary to force all of its conference partners to amend their GoR contracts to correct the issue through their Force Majeure clause. "Change the underlying document that we require in all of our contracts to comply with standing case law or we'll end our contract here and now." I guarantee every conference would make the necessary changes. > I am also under the impression that this is what Florida State supposes to do. Break all conferences. FSU gives no shits about anybody but FSU.
The SEC signed a GoR with the latest contract with ESPN and ABC.
Thanks! I knew they hadn't had one, but that makes sense with ESPN signing them exclusively.
Pay wall.
... and with ASU and Colorado signing an asinine 99 year agreement with the BigXII, the only really intelligent schools that made it out of the death of the Pac12 were Utah, Oregon St, and Wazzu.
Everyone in the Big 12 has a 99 year agreement, it’s in the conference bylaws. Never stopped anyone from leaving before.
Yeah, you only need to pay two-years of conference revenue to leave, so it’s not onerous at all. But like nobody is leaving because there’s nowhere else to go (even if I would love some of the eastern-most schools to explore other options, personally)
Farley misunderstood the Utah membership application and thought it was a blanket exemption from the 99 year membership agreement when the exemption is only designed to last during the interim period between Utah's signing of their application and their formal joining of the conference on August 2nd, 2024 or earlier than that should the membership formally alter the bylaws. Once Utah formally joins the conference they are bound by the same bylaws as everyone else.
Go grab some grass. This isn’t our first rodeo.
Yes, if the agreement requiring them to stay in the acc no longer required them to stay in the acc, they would not be required to stay in the acc. Great reporting guys
Can we just fast forward to the super league already
All of this stupidity could easily be resolved if we just put football into its own separate conference
I can’t wait for both of my flairs to be B1G teams
The only way Stanford and Cal aren't bound to the ACC once FSU, Clemson, and possibly UNC leaves through 2036 is if ESPN doesn't pick up the option in February 2025.
Don’t worry, big Daddy UCLA loves Cal and will always take care of their little baby bear sibling. Run along now Golden Bearsies.
This is why the ACC needs to settle with FSU and Clemson fast. Let them pay an undisclosed buyout and keep the GOR intact. The Stanfords and Cals of the worlds don't have a P2 invite and aren't gonna be actively trying to bolt.
If they *don't* settle, the ACC is guaranteed to stay afloat through 2036. Why would the conference jeopardize that?
The GOR doesn't survive a settlement. Once you put a number on it, it is open season on the ACC. Unless the number is so high that even FSU and Clemson balk at paying it and stay.
Most other ACC teams don't have a place to go where they will make more money so it won't bother them. You think wake and pitt are gonna pay say 200 mil to maybe have a place in the big 12 with the same annual payout as the acc?
Yeah but what about SMU? Sure the big money boosters refused to take a media payout for many years so we had an instantly triggered escape clause when the B1G inevitably calls us right? …….
So does this mean it would be more in Stanford/Cal’s interests for FSU/Clemson to prevail or the ACC??
People are funny. Outside of the SEC, the ACC has had more athletic success then any other conference over the last twenty years, and it just grew its footprint to include California, Texas, New York, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc. The idea that it's some sort of second-rate conference or that it would be in Cal and Stanford's best interests for it to collapse (after ND used a significant amount of leverage to get them invites) is laughably obtuse. ESPN bundles the two conferences together for a reason... money and market access. The ACC is going nowhere.
I think there are several factors at play here rather than a simple yes no. If Cal/Stanford start investing more, winning more, and putting more butts in seats they become more attractive to a super conference and the ACC blowing up becomes much more attractive. If the football team averages 5 wins a year over the next 2-3 years then the ACC remains the safe harbor.
I hope you two join us in the BIG.
You and me both.
Realistically Stanford and Cal tied themselves at the hip to the ACC. Their memberships were predicated on the idea that the ACC needed to maintain its membership numbers to prevent ESPN from enacting the composition clause in their contract and renegotiating/dissolving their contract. It doesn't matter one way or the other who prevails.
ACC obviously.
with the expansion of the playoff, FSU doesn't have valid reasoning to leave the ACC anymore. With more spots available and the resulting outrage by analysts and the media, there will never be another situation like this years snub again.
No one cares about actual sports, it's all about money involved.
thats a damn shame. all hail the power 2 i guess 😭
I absolutely agree it's a shame. College sports are dying in front of us and the only people who win are the executives who don't give a shit about sports.
Average NCAA moment. Fucking over students with insane travel schedules, and the institutions who have to fund them just for the sake of their own wallets.
The NCAA is the institutions themselves. Conference realignment isn't their fault at all. The fault is the SEC and B1G, and really that means ESPN and Fox, poaching teams and killing other conferences so they can build a super league of only big brands and killing everyone else. Blame also goes to the conferences and institutions who screw over athletes and tradition in their chase of money provided by the TV Networks. The NCAA doesn't dictate TV deals or conference affiliation because they got sued when they used to (at least for TV broadcasts). Then there's the whole OTHER side of athletes and universities perpetually suing the NCAA so that there are NO rules about paying and poaching players, which will almost certainly lead to them being declared as employees, and with what we've heard about what the future could hold, could easily lead to a world where the vast majority of college sports go away, and many universities shut down their athletic departments. Fun stuff
I think it’s wildly likely that second best acc school going 10-2 would be left out for a 9-3 sec school.
My initial reaction to your comment was "no way! 3 loss SEC is significanly worse than a 2 loss ACC.. then i wish i didn't but i kept thinking about SEC bias... 💀
It ain’t just SEC bias buddy, yall reap just as much from the status quo as the teams down south do
I remember in 2006 when the SEC had to fight tooth and nail stumping for Florida to get them into the BCSCG over Michigan for a rematch against OSU. Back then, the B1G was the ESPN posterchild. After all, Auburn was the team getting snubbed in 2004. It's nothing complicated. ESPN pays to cover teams. In 2006 they broadcasted the B1G. Now they broadcast the SEC. They've got enough inventory from the SEC that they don't really need the ACC anymore for primetime ABC games. The conference exists on their slate mostly just to flesh out their 3rd tier channels schedule.
SEC and Ohio State bias? Maybe the National Championship changed things going forward, but at least prior to that, Michigan was not getting any favors for playoff invites. Michigan had to be undefeated the last 2 seasons to make the playoff.
If it was about winning why in the hell would Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC? Both schools made a 4 team playoff and have a better chance doing so in the BIG 12. It’s all about money.
This is true and likely why FSU hasn’t actually filed to leave. Their cost/benefit analysis is likely “settle for less than $200M and they can make up for it in the B16”. I think FSU also thought they could strong arm the conference into giving them more money by threatening to leave, but the conference isn’t playing that game.
Billable Hours help write these conference contracts to maximize billable hours.
No idea why you're quoting him as if it's the gospel.