I take it you are referring to Stanford.

Having had more contact with Californians than a sane person should two things about them I can attest to - they hate Easterners and they hate Southerners even more. If you do not speak English with a Hispanic accent your are expected to speak it with a Chicago/Midwest accent otherwise you are labeled an ******* or a moron. This reaction crosses all levels of society and is particularly pronounced (pun intended) in academia.

The cultural difference between UCLA and USC and say Wisconsin/Minnesota/Michigan/Northwestern is less than the cultural difference between Syracuse and Florida State. Some of this is a direct product of WWII and the Cold War driving demographics. The schools I put in the untenable category are at the core of their respective conferences - they are in their cultural center. No one in the center of the core leaves unless their entire conference collapses as did the Big 8 and the SWC.

If a new major football model arises that might cause some change but possibly only for football.

There is no easy analogue for Stanford or Cal in the ACC. Superficially Duke and UNC seem to be doppelgangers but Duke's essential culture is constrained by UNC and NC State being just a few miles down the road. They share the same media, housing stock, neighborhoods, political choices, etc. Stanford has an in-metro pal, but it's Cal-Berkley. Stanford and Cal represent the full antithesis to paternalism.

Some of you pull for or graduated from schools that were not constrained inside a State system or were wedged into single media market where you were constantly compared to another in all matters great and small.

Cal without UCLA and Stanford without USC might be slightly different animals.

(12-20-2022 03:14 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Can't wait to watch the 17th annual "Miami's Back, Baby!" tour next fall.

https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1525269715525967873

the things you think are important ...

AIN’T SO

(12-20-2022 07:52 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 03:14 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Can't wait to watch the 17th annual "Miami's Back, Baby!" tour next fall.

https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1525269715525967873

the things you think are important ...

AIN’T SO

Yeah I know, Cincinnati had 9 players drafted in the draft you referenced, including the 4th overall pick in the 1st Round who is among the favorites to be the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year.

(12-20-2022 09:38 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 07:52 PM)green Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 03:14 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Can't wait to watch the 17th annual "Miami's Back, Baby!" tour next fall.

https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1525269715525967873

the things you think are important ...

AIN’T SO

Yeah I know, Cincinnati had 9 players drafted in the draft you referenced, including the 4th overall pick in the 1st Round who is among the favorites to be the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year.

you misconstrue ...
west coast equivalent ...
belle of the ball ...
poor performance ...
poor attendance ...

NO PROBLEM

(12-20-2022 04:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 11:53 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  My personal thoughts based on research, work, travel, conversation, life, is that the following schools are most like or fit into the ACC the best from a culture standpoint (there is more to life than football, not much more, but more):

Culture Buds Now:

1. Vandy
2. USF
3. Penn State
4. MD
5. South Carolina
6. Florida
7. Tulane
8. Army
9. Navy

Not Quite Culture Buds NOW:

10. ND
11. Purdue
12. Tennessee
13. West Virginia
14. Georgia
15. Northwestern
16. Kentucky

Some Culture Shock:

17. Kansas
18. Iowa State
19. Auburn
20. Houston
21. TCU
22. Illinois

Untenable Culture Shock:

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, OU, OSU, Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Colorado, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, BYU, Baylor

One of the shared traits of the untenable is the unwillingness to bow down to elites. That's before any right or left politics, before labor ideation, and before the role of football. You also see the cores of the SEC, P12, and B10 in the untenables - LSU/Bama/soon to be Texas, Ohio State/Michigan/Minn, USC/UCLA/Oregon/Stanford

Not sure that geography or regional culture will be major factors in ACC expansion. The B1G and B12 both strengthened themselves by transforming into national conferences. Hanging-on to regional identities (such as Tobacco Road) means that you’re likely not transforming into the conference of the future.

Expansion is about generating more revenue, building brands and rivalries that drive viewership, and football success on the field. Assuming finances and football are adequate, the academic profile will get consideration. School presidents have a bias towards other schools that share similar views on student athletes.

IMHO, I could see a few schools in the “untenable culture shock” category joining the ACC.

The very nature of Tidewater Atlantic is decentralization which works well with shared culture.
The idea of trading culture for money is gauche.
I think you will find that "culture" would rather do with less than compromise.

(12-21-2022 05:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 04:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 11:53 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  My personal thoughts based on research, work, travel, conversation, life, is that the following schools are most like or fit into the ACC the best from a culture standpoint (there is more to life than football, not much more, but more):

Culture Buds Now:

1. Vandy
2. USF
3. Penn State
4. MD
5. South Carolina
6. Florida
7. Tulane
8. Army
9. Navy

Not Quite Culture Buds NOW:

10. ND
11. Purdue
12. Tennessee
13. West Virginia
14. Georgia
15. Northwestern
16. Kentucky

Some Culture Shock:

17. Kansas
18. Iowa State
19. Auburn
20. Houston
21. TCU
22. Illinois

Untenable Culture Shock:

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, OU, OSU, Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Colorado, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, BYU, Baylor

One of the shared traits of the untenable is the unwillingness to bow down to elites. That's before any right or left politics, before labor ideation, and before the role of football. You also see the cores of the SEC, P12, and B10 in the untenables - LSU/Bama/soon to be Texas, Ohio State/Michigan/Minn, USC/UCLA/Oregon/Stanford

Not sure that geography or regional culture will be major factors in ACC expansion. The B1G and B12 both strengthened themselves by transforming into national conferences. Hanging-on to regional identities (such as Tobacco Road) means that you’re likely not transforming into the conference of the future.

Expansion is about generating more revenue, building brands and rivalries that drive viewership, and football success on the field. Assuming finances and football are adequate, the academic profile will get consideration. School presidents have a bias towards other schools that share similar views on student athletes.

IMHO, I could see a few schools in the “untenable culture shock” category joining the ACC.

The very nature of Tidewater Atlantic is decentralization which works well with shared culture.
The idea of trading culture for money is gauche.
I think you will find that "culture" would rather do with less than compromise.

With regards to trading culture for money, I believe that the ACC has already had three more significant decision-points in the past half century:
1) Expansion into the Deep South with Georgia Tech and Florida State…football uber alles.
2) Expansion into the tropics with Miami and north with Boston College, then doubling down with Syracuse and Pitt…media and markets grabs.
3) Expansion with partial member Notre Dame and financially-savvy Louisville…brands and fandoms dominate.

At the risk of being too Darwinian, entities need to evolve and adapt in order to survive and thrive. Culture is hugely important to having a successful conference. But it’s the student-athlete culture; and it’s about the university-level cultural commitment to competition and winning. The heritage of the B1G may be Midwestern, but the B1G universities’ cultural glue is elite academic research. The B1G still has a cohesive vision for student athletes and collegiate competition.

Equating ACC culture with societal norms in Greensboro or the broader Mid-Atlantic obfuscates the real issues. The ACC already grew into the Deep South, then an expansive Southeast, then Northeast, and eventually the Midwest. Recruiting elite athletes is already a national endeavor. Pretending that cross-country trips are insurmountable obstacles is wrong. IMO, it’s possible to assimilate schools like Stanford or Cal to the ACC…and these schools have more collegiate athletic value than other options being discussed.

I like the acc getting to 18 and break into 2 divisions of 9 with little cross over. First 2 adds are West Virginia and Cincinnati. Last add gets a little tricky, I like Georgetown but not sure if they would do it. Others to consider, UConn without football and a Texas school.

ACC

UVA, V Tech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Wake, Clemson, G Tech, FSU

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami, ND, UConn(no football)

Hoops format 16 h/a from your division, 1 permanent from the other division and 1 rotated
Football format 3-2-2-2, 4 pods of 4

ND and UConn football play 5 ACC games

(12-21-2022 11:50 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 05:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 04:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 11:53 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  My personal thoughts based on research, work, travel, conversation, life, is that the following schools are most like or fit into the ACC the best from a culture standpoint (there is more to life than football, not much more, but more):

Culture Buds Now:

1. Vandy
2. USF
3. Penn State
4. MD
5. South Carolina
6. Florida
7. Tulane
8. Army
9. Navy

Not Quite Culture Buds NOW:

10. ND
11. Purdue
12. Tennessee
13. West Virginia
14. Georgia
15. Northwestern
16. Kentucky

Some Culture Shock:

17. Kansas
18. Iowa State
19. Auburn
20. Houston
21. TCU
22. Illinois

Untenable Culture Shock:

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, OU, OSU, Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Colorado, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, BYU, Baylor

One of the shared traits of the untenable is the unwillingness to bow down to elites. That's before any right or left politics, before labor ideation, and before the role of football. You also see the cores of the SEC, P12, and B10 in the untenables - LSU/Bama/soon to be Texas, Ohio State/Michigan/Minn, USC/UCLA/Oregon/Stanford

Not sure that geography or regional culture will be major factors in ACC expansion. The B1G and B12 both strengthened themselves by transforming into national conferences. Hanging-on to regional identities (such as Tobacco Road) means that you’re likely not transforming into the conference of the future.

Expansion is about generating more revenue, building brands and rivalries that drive viewership, and football success on the field. Assuming finances and football are adequate, the academic profile will get consideration. School presidents have a bias towards other schools that share similar views on student athletes.

IMHO, I could see a few schools in the “untenable culture shock” category joining the ACC.

The very nature of Tidewater Atlantic is decentralization which works well with shared culture.
The idea of trading culture for money is gauche.
I think you will find that "culture" would rather do with less than compromise.

With regards to trading culture for money, I believe that the ACC has already had three more significant decision-points in the past half century:
1) Expansion into the Deep South with Georgia Tech and Florida State…football uber alles.
2) Expansion into the tropics with Miami and north with Boston College, then doubling down with Syracuse and Pitt…media and markets grabs.
3) Expansion with partial member Notre Dame and financially-savvy Louisville…brands and fandoms dominate.

At the risk of being too Darwinian, entities need to evolve and adapt in order to survive and thrive. Culture is hugely important to having a successful conference. But it’s the student-athlete culture; and it’s about the university-level cultural commitment to competition and winning. The heritage of the B1G may be Midwestern, but the B1G universities’ cultural glue is elite academic research. The B1G still has a cohesive vision for student athletes and collegiate competition.

Equating ACC culture with societal norms in Greensboro or the broader Mid-Atlantic obfuscates the real issues. The ACC already grew into the Deep South, then an expansive Southeast, then Northeast, and eventually the Midwest. Recruiting elite athletes is already a national endeavor. Pretending that cross-country trips are insurmountable obstacles is wrong. IMO, it’s possible to assimilate schools like Stanford or Cal to the ACC…and these schools have more collegiate athletic value than other options being discussed.

This becomes a complicating factor:
Washington is a top 5 research institution. Duke and Carolina are both top 15. If you use "elite academic research" as your defining glue, it could be said that all three of those institutions belonged in the B1G and not in the ACC.
Personally I think that the pull of "culture" is stronger than research. Remember that 82% of Carolina and NC State students must hale from within the State of North Carolina (by law). Even with the past expansions Virginia and North Carolina have remained the fulcrum of the conference, I don't really expect that to change.

(12-20-2022 01:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think Cincy and WVU are the only East Coast schools that the ACC may invite at this point. If and when FSU leaves, add UCF/USF in the mix.

I find that a very plausible priority list.

Creating West Coast partnerships to open a new division on the Pacific... that's another level of strategizing—and risk—altogether. That's going deep.

If the pass connects, we'll hear about it. If not, we probably won't.

(12-21-2022 12:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 11:50 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 05:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 04:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 11:53 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  My personal thoughts based on research, work, travel, conversation, life, is that the following schools are most like or fit into the ACC the best from a culture standpoint (there is more to life than football, not much more, but more):

Culture Buds Now:

1. Vandy
2. USF
3. Penn State
4. MD
5. South Carolina
6. Florida
7. Tulane
8. Army
9. Navy

Not Quite Culture Buds NOW:

10. ND
11. Purdue
12. Tennessee
13. West Virginia
14. Georgia
15. Northwestern
16. Kentucky

Some Culture Shock:

17. Kansas
18. Iowa State
19. Auburn
20. Houston
21. TCU
22. Illinois

Untenable Culture Shock:

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Texas, OU, OSU, Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Colorado, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, BYU, Baylor

One of the shared traits of the untenable is the unwillingness to bow down to elites. That's before any right or left politics, before labor ideation, and before the role of football. You also see the cores of the SEC, P12, and B10 in the untenables - LSU/Bama/soon to be Texas, Ohio State/Michigan/Minn, USC/UCLA/Oregon/Stanford

Not sure that geography or regional culture will be major factors in ACC expansion. The B1G and B12 both strengthened themselves by transforming into national conferences. Hanging-on to regional identities (such as Tobacco Road) means that you’re likely not transforming into the conference of the future.

Expansion is about generating more revenue, building brands and rivalries that drive viewership, and football success on the field. Assuming finances and football are adequate, the academic profile will get consideration. School presidents have a bias towards other schools that share similar views on student athletes.

IMHO, I could see a few schools in the “untenable culture shock” category joining the ACC.

The very nature of Tidewater Atlantic is decentralization which works well with shared culture.
The idea of trading culture for money is gauche.
I think you will find that "culture" would rather do with less than compromise.

With regards to trading culture for money, I believe that the ACC has already had three more significant decision-points in the past half century:
1) Expansion into the Deep South with Georgia Tech and Florida State…football uber alles.
2) Expansion into the tropics with Miami and north with Boston College, then doubling down with Syracuse and Pitt…media and markets grabs.
3) Expansion with partial member Notre Dame and financially-savvy Louisville…brands and fandoms dominate.

At the risk of being too Darwinian, entities need to evolve and adapt in order to survive and thrive. Culture is hugely important to having a successful conference. But it’s the student-athlete culture; and it’s about the university-level cultural commitment to competition and winning. The heritage of the B1G may be Midwestern, but the B1G universities’ cultural glue is elite academic research. The B1G still has a cohesive vision for student athletes and collegiate competition.

Equating ACC culture with societal norms in Greensboro or the broader Mid-Atlantic obfuscates the real issues. The ACC already grew into the Deep South, then an expansive Southeast, then Northeast, and eventually the Midwest. Recruiting elite athletes is already a national endeavor. Pretending that cross-country trips are insurmountable obstacles is wrong. IMO, it’s possible to assimilate schools like Stanford or Cal to the ACC…and these schools have more collegiate athletic value than other options being discussed.

This becomes a complicating factor:
Washington is a top 5 research institution. Duke and Carolina are both top 15. If you use "elite academic research" as your defining glue, it could be said that all three of those institutions belonged in the B1G and not in the ACC.
Personally I think that the pull of "culture" is stronger than research. Remember that 82% of Carolina and NC State students must hale from within the State of North Carolina (by law). Even with the past expansions Virginia and North Carolina have remained the fulcrum of the conference, I don't really expect that to change.

If you just use the NSF this is were the ACC lands on XLance's point:

11 Duke
13 UNC
18 Pitt
19 GT

The first tier is equal to the Big 10's top tier.

44 UVa
49 VT
51 NC State

This tier is equal to the bottom tier of the Big 10

69 Miami
75 FSU

Clemson is an odd case because for so long Clemson was very small and the State of SC was late to the education obsessed Cold War use of the university to grow economic development. Clemson did not admit women until 1955.

107 Clemson

Notre Dame, WF, and BC are very elite colleges.

Syracuse and Louisville are the cultural isolates in this sense. Syracuse because they chucked some of their graduate programs after being screwed by the State of NY in the 1970's. Louisville because for most of the 20th Century it was a city college with an advanced Medical School.

Graduate level research is the most important thing to ACC schools as a group. Elite undergraduate educations in the second most important thing to ACC schools as a group. This is the culture of the "schools". The cultures of the powers that be and the regions where the schools exist are a little different. Patrician, arms length decision making that is often based on maintaining a status quo and tradition is BC, UVa, VT, UNC, NC State, WF, Duke, and Clemson. Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, and FSU are a little more entrepreneurial, progressive, and demonstrative.

GT is a weird duck relative to their ptb. If you combined GT with Emory you would get Duke. If you combined GT with UGa you would get Ohio State.


I am beginning to suspect that the best play for the ACC is to wait and see who is most unhappy in the B10 and SEC around 2030. Even an extra $30-40 million a year can't make up for being the SEC or B10 doormat.

I can see MD, Purdue, Vandy, South Carolina, Mizzou, and perhaps even Tennessee, TAMU, and Auburn looking for a different situation in the 2040's.

An ACC with TAMU, TCU, Vandy, Auburn, MIzzou, Purdue, SC, Miami, Clemson, NC State, MD, VT, UVa, Pitt, GT, BC, PSU, Syracuse.

ACC North

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, PSU, MD, Purdue (The Jo Pa Division)

ACC West

TCU, TAMU, Mizzou, Clemson, SC, Auburn (The Tiger Division)

ACC East

Miami, UNC, NCSU, VT, UVa, GT (The Snob Division)

(12-21-2022 02:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 01:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think Cincy and WVU are the only East Coast schools that the ACC may invite at this point. If and when FSU leaves, add UCF/USF in the mix.

I find that a very plausible priority list.

Creating West Coast partnerships to open a new division on the Pacific... that's another level of strategizing—and risk—altogether. That's going deep.

If the pass connects, we'll hear about it. If not, we probably won't.

Let's examine the players out west and rate them for congruence for -
Overall Cultural Fit
Academic Fit
PTB Culture Fit
Bringing Solid Football Culture
Bringing TV Eyeballs

Lets rate them 0, 1, 2, 3 with three being the best.

15 Utah
13 Washington
12 Arizona State, Arizona
11 Oregon
10 Colorado
9 Stanford
8 Oregon State, Washington State, Cal

Utah, Washington, ASU, and UA would fit almost seamlessly into the ACC, but they could also fit seamlessly into the B10, SEC, or B12.

Oregon, Colorado, and Stanford will have issues most everywhere. Nike is an issue for Oregon and I don;t know how you fix that and Oregon is not the academic institution it was 30 years. Colorado has almost the the same set of issues as Stanford, except the issues are running 15 years behind Stanford. OSU and WSU do not add anything. Cal is not worth the potential political trouble.

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 02:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 01:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think Cincy and WVU are the only East Coast schools that the ACC may invite at this point. If and when FSU leaves, add UCF/USF in the mix.

I find that a very plausible priority list.

Creating West Coast partnerships to open a new division on the Pacific... that's another level of strategizing—and risk—altogether. That's going deep.

If the pass connects, we'll hear about it. If not, we probably won't.

....
Utah, Washington, ASU, and UA would fit almost seamlessly into the ACC, but they could also fit seamlessly into the B10, SEC, or B12.

Oregon, Colorado, and Stanford will have issues most everywhere. Nike is an issue for Oregon and I don;t know how you fix that and Oregon is not the academic institution it was 30 years. Colorado has almost the the same set of issues as Stanford, except the issues are running 15 years behind Stanford. OSU and WSU do not add anything. Cal is not worth the potential political trouble.

ACC presidents, including ND, would welcome Stanford and Cal. If mutual interest existed out west, it would just come down to what the network numbers look like.

In a two-coast scenario the ACC and ESPN would be considering how Pacific schools augment the league as a set. The San Francisco schools would likely be a key ingredient in assembling that set.

(12-21-2022 11:41 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 02:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 01:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think Cincy and WVU are the only East Coast schools that the ACC may invite at this point. If and when FSU leaves, add UCF/USF in the mix.

I find that a very plausible priority list.

Creating West Coast partnerships to open a new division on the Pacific... that's another level of strategizing—and risk—altogether. That's going deep.

If the pass connects, we'll hear about it. If not, we probably won't.

....
Utah, Washington, ASU, and UA would fit almost seamlessly into the ACC, but they could also fit seamlessly into the B10, SEC, or B12.

Oregon, Colorado, and Stanford will have issues most everywhere. Nike is an issue for Oregon and I don;t know how you fix that and Oregon is not the academic institution it was 30 years. Colorado has almost the the same set of issues as Stanford, except the issues are running 15 years behind Stanford. OSU and WSU do not add anything. Cal is not worth the potential political trouble.

ACC presidents, including ND, would welcome Stanford and Cal. If mutual interest existed out west, it would just come down to what the network numbers look like.

In a two-coast scenario the ACC and ESPN would be considering how Pacific schools augment the league as a set. The San Francisco schools would likely be a key ingredient in assembling that set.

I think the ACC has two options and they need to decide which one they will use and do it relatively soon.

Each move sucks the air out of the room for a competing conference and each move helps cement the ACC as a survivor in this transformation.

1. Expand within the ESPN family by consolidating a Western Division comprised of former Old Big 12 schools:

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech and add West Virginia to your Northeastern Division (Ditching Atlantic and Coastal arrangements in favor of a geographical grouping).

These schools may not be your cup of tea academically, but they are schools which enjoy solid fan support, all are competitive on the football field, and half of them are solid in hoops.

The move reduces the New Big 12 into being a more Westerly AAC.

2. Expand with what ESPN needs for its late night window and markets for the ACCN by taking six PAC 12 schools and sucking the air out of the Big 10 expansion.

California, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, and Washington.

This group is comprised of significant academic schools, is grouped as well geographically as any current PAC schools without duplicating in Oregon and Washington, and it locks the Big 10 into a position of living with the flyover, which will be tiresome for both USC and UCLA and Big 10 schools.

The move also ends the PAC 12 as a P conference.

With option 1 the ACC can lose 4 schools and still be a solid 18 member conference. Should the ACC lose Clemson and Florida State (just a plausible illustration) and a school in Virginia and North Carolina (doesn't matter if its UNC, NC State, Virginia or Virginia Tech) the ACC could reconstruct this way:

Boston College, Miami, Notre Dame (whether in full or just playing the division) Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina or N.C. State, Virginia or Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

That's without a question an all P conference athletically.

With option 2 the ACC can work the same magic with the same losses. Only this time it's an all academic move and a major market expansion.

Should Notre Dame leave and along with them Clemson and Florida State and one North Carolina and one Virginia School you still have solid options. Only you now can consider a total market grab.

California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Again, all P in every way.

If you really want to incorporate Central Florida and Cincinnati in any of these scenarios there are ways.

This scenario assumes that Kansas, Notre Dame, Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson and Florida State go elsewhere. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. My point is to illustrate that there is no reason to consider promoting less affluent and less recognized brands when you have schools which have been within the initial P6, have dedicated and supportive fan bases, and which broaden your markets without too much overlap and duplication.

Since the result would be from moves which could see the Big 10 add the Southern AAU PAC schools picking up Colorado and Arizona to go with Kansas and Notre Dame (which makes geographical sense at 20) you could get some solid regional divisions in all conferences:

Arizona, California Los Angeles, Colorado, Nebraska, Southern California

Penn State, Purdue, Maryland, Notre Dame, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

and the SEC:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina

Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Now why is this important? With these 3 conferences of 20 you have a consolidation within the current 69 team upper tier to 60. Yes you could have a 4th conference, perhaps of 18, still give them a playoff slot and they would become the tweener, but the ACC would not be the tweener.

Air Force, Baylor, Central Florida, Houston, South Florida, Tulane

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Navy, Temple

Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

Anyway geographically, earnings wise, and size wise conferences like these could make more sense, remain inclusive of the current 69, while consolidating brand and like revenue producers, and essentially form a contained upper tier.

The CFP money would be enough if contained to these to keep things at least a bit more competitive than they are now.

(12-22-2022 01:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the ACC has two options and they need to decide which one they will use and do it relatively soon.

Each move sucks the air out of the room for a competing conference and each move helps cement the ACC as a survivor as a survivor in this transformation.

1. Expand within the ESPN family by consolidating a Western Division comprised of former Old Big 12 schools:

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech and add West Virginia to your Northeastern Division (Ditching Atlantic and Coastal arrangements in favor of a geographical grouping).

These schools may not be your cup of tea academically, but they are schools which enjoy solid fan support, all are competitive on the football field, and half of them are solid in hoops.

The move reduces the New Big 12 into being a more Westerly AAC.

2. Expand with what ESPN needs for its late night window and markets for the ACCN by taking six PAC 12 schools and sucking the air out of the Big 10 expansion.

California, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, and Washington.

This group is comprised of significant academic schools, is grouped as well geographically as any current PAC schools without duplicating in Oregon and Washington, and it locks the Big 10 into a position of living with the flyover, which will be tiresome for both USC and UCLA and Big 10 schools.

The move also ends the PAC 12 as a P conference.


With option 1 the ACC can lose 4 schools and still be a solid 18 member conference. Should the ACC lose Clemson and Florida State (just a plausible illustration) and a school in Virginia and North Carolina (doesn't matter if its UNC, NC State, Virginia or Virginia Tech) the ACC could reconstruct this way:

Boston College, Miami, Notre Dame (whether in full or just playing the division) Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina or N.C. State, Virginia or Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

That's without a question an all P conference athletically.


With option 2 the ACC can work the same magic with the same losses. Only this time it's an all academic move and a major market expansion.

Should Notre Dame leave and along with them Clemson and Florida State and one North Carolina and one Virginia School you still have solid options. Only you now can consider a total market grab.

California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Again, all P in every way.


If you really want to incorporate Central Florida and Cincinnati in any of these scenarios there are ways.

This scenario assumes that Kansas, Notre Dame, Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson and Florida State go elsewhere. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. My point is to illustrate that there is no reason to consider promoting less affluent and less recognized brands when you have schools which have been within the initial P6, have dedicated and supportive fan bases, and which broaden your markets without too much overlap and duplication.


Since the result would be from moves which could see the Big 10 add the Southern AAU PAC schools picking up Colorado and Arizona to go with Kansas and Notre Dame (which makes geographical sense at 20) you could get some solid regional divisions in all conferences:

Arizona, California Los Angeles, Colorado, Nebraska, Southern California

Penn State, Purdue, Maryland, Notre Dame, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin


and the SEC:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina

Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M


Now why is this important? With these 3 conferences of 20 you have a consolidation within the current 69 team upper tier to 60. Yes you could have a 4th conference, perhaps of 18, still give them a playoff slot and they would become the tweener, but the ACC would not be the tweener.

Air Force, Baylor, Central Florida, Houston, South Florida, Tulane

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Navy, Temple

Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State


Anyway geographically, earnings wise, and size wise conferences like these could make more sense, remain inclusive of the current 69, while consolidating brand and like revenue producers, and essentially form a contained upper tier.

The CFP money would be enough if contained to these to keep things at least a bit more competitive than they are now.

Thank you for taking the time to sketch out these strategies and share them. Everything looks good to me.

It would seem that FOX and ESPN will continue to split the Big 12.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...l-espn-fox

That "new" conference will earn about $32 Million per year starting in 2025. At first glance ESPN is responsible for 60% and will broadcast more football and FOX 40% and will get more Big 12 basketball.
That means ESPN will be responsible for paying $19.2 Million per Big 12 team, which is less than half of the anticipated ACC earnings for this year.

I guess we'll see if ESPN wants to boost 4 ACC schools income by $30 million ($120 million annually) to join the SEC and boost 7 Big 12 schools income by at least $20-$25 million per year (approx. $175 million annually) just to shuffle the deck with the same schools they already have or will have contracts with.
$300 Million annually (that will only increase over time) in an environment where it's possible that Disney is looking to offload ESPN?
The situation with the west coast schools would present the exact scenario. And the PAC schools aren't worth as much to ESPN as the Big 12 because of limited broadcast windows.

ESPN is not stupid and "Divide et impera" is as true today in business as it has been in war and politics since first uttered by Julius Caesar.

(12-22-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  It would seem that FOX and ESPN will continue to split the Big 12.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...l-espn-fox

That "new" conference will earn about $32 Million per year starting in 2025. At first glance ESPN is responsible for 60% and will broadcast more football and FOX 40% and will get more Big 12 basketball.
That means ESPN will be responsible for paying $19.2 Million per Big 12 team, which is less than half of the anticipated ACC earnings for this year.

I guess we'll see if ESPN wants to boost 4 ACC schools income by $30 million ($120 million annually) to join the SEC and boost 7 Big 12 schools income by at least $20-$25 million per year (approx. $175 million annually) just to shuffle the deck with the same schools they already have or will have contracts with.
$300 Million annually (that will only increase over time) in an environment where it's possible that Disney is looking to offload ESPN?
The situation with the west coast schools would present the exact scenario. And the PAC schools aren't worth as much to ESPN as the Big 12 because of limited broadcast windows.

ESPN is not stupid and "Divide et impera" is as true today in business as it has been in war and politics since first uttered by Julius Caesar.

Actually the value of the contract is listed at about $32 million over 6 years. Unless this is something new, the top contract value usually reported as the value of the contract are the midpoint years.

This would ratchet out to them as

$26 M in 2025
$28 M in 2026
$30 M in 2027
$32 M in 2028
$34 M in 2029
$36 M in 2030

Then out of the above number the schools are going to incur a $1 million - 1.3 million annual charge to run the conference.

It beats a stick to the eye no doubt, but it is not as lucrative as B12 boosters make out.

Unless I have miscalculated the B12 will keep just 7 basketball units from Texas and OU in year one, falling to 5 in year two, three in year three, and 1 or 2 in year four then that windfall is gone. BYU will bring one unit. A unit is worth about $350K-400K a year.

That's just $3.2 million, $2.4 million, 1.6 million, and then .8 million.

They have 3 years left on the Sugar Bowl Contract for 24, 25, and 26 which pays the B12 $40 M a year. I don't know what happens after 2026 on the Sugar Bowl. Right now each B12 school is getting $ 4 million a year for the Sugar Bowl. Will that revenue be replaced? Grown? Lost?

(12-22-2022 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  It would seem that FOX and ESPN will continue to split the Big 12.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...l-espn-fox

That "new" conference will earn about $32 Million per year starting in 2025. At first glance ESPN is responsible for 60% and will broadcast more football and FOX 40% and will get more Big 12 basketball.
That means ESPN will be responsible for paying $19.2 Million per Big 12 team, which is less than half of the anticipated ACC earnings for this year.

I guess we'll see if ESPN wants to boost 4 ACC schools income by $30 million ($120 million annually) to join the SEC and boost 7 Big 12 schools income by at least $20-$25 million per year (approx. $175 million annually) just to shuffle the deck with the same schools they already have or will have contracts with.
$300 Million annually (that will only increase over time) in an environment where it's possible that Disney is looking to offload ESPN?
The situation with the west coast schools would present the exact scenario. And the PAC schools aren't worth as much to ESPN as the Big 12 because of limited broadcast windows.

ESPN is not stupid and "Divide et impera" is as true today in business as it has been in war and politics since first uttered by Julius Caesar.

And yet nobody has ratified that deal yet. Why?

I suspect that it's still open by mutual consent, which implies there may be a move or two left there, or a move or two to there which has not yet come.

I would still be surprised if FOX/Big 10 is finished with the PAC. My reason is that Washington by most metrics is the #1 value there and Oregon the #2. USC and UCLA were in the #1 market but were the #3 and #4 values in the PAC by most other data.

FOX and ESPN may have the idea to consolidate further and wind up with two augmented conferences, more like the AAC than the ACC in payouts, where the PAC and Big 12 once stood or possibly to split one larger conference at lesser pay.

If movement is open as it is in the Big 12 and PAC then any number of moves is still possible. They still have to look at what a school's potential worth is when mixed with better competition and in a conference with much higher public interest vs what they have where they are currently placed. Then they have to weigh whether what they would earn elsewhere covers the added cost and raises their bottom line. And their bottom line can increase by added value in a move, or by lower costs to pay multiple teams a bit less after defections. Those 2 GOR's are up in 2 years tops, and some earlier.

It is also possible for the networks to make money by moving a few schools laterally if it better segregates the remaining value classes. This is why Oregon and Washington, Stanford which is #6 in value in the PAC (ASU is #5 but not AAU) make sense for either the Big 10 which would be a bump split more ways (CBS/NBC) than just FOX (and is needed inventory to satisfy all 3 companies demands), or in the ACC where they are additive to the overall value of the conference, but could be appeased with the projected ACC money plus a small bump instead of paid much more money in the Big 10. And this is why I expect FOX could move to push the greater Big 10 move. It is also why ESPN may try to scoop them to the ACC.

If Florida State is the only product which is both massively unhappy and could leave the ESPN family because of it then a move for them to the SEC makes sense. It makes sense especially if the value of the move is covered by the value added by an ACC expansion and made profitable by the T1 boost in the SEC.

FSU and Kansas to the SEC costs only the boost to Kansas and FSU which is about 75 million. Kansas however raises the whole SEC hoops value and yields at least 2 games a year with Kentucky. Florida State is a content value multiplier against an SEC schedule and in a large state. ESPN easily recoups their money.

If ESPN is smart, they make the grander move with the NW PAC schools which have a higher value by finding a deal with the ACC. If the ACC only loses FSU and Notre Dame, meaning North Carolina and Virginia truly value current associations more and pass on moves to either the SEC or Big 10, then adding 4 schools to the West becomes more problematic in that there isn't enough West Coast interplay to keep travel down. Seven however takes you to 20, and if two of those seven are West Virginia and Central Florida/ USF then you break down nicely:

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Central Florida/South Florida, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

California, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Washington

With 2 built in home games on the West Coast, and 2 built in away games on the West coast, and 3 away games to the East and 3 East games at home in the West, the Western division would play 7 of 10 conferences games on their side of the United States. The two buy games could be played with USC and LA home and away, or with Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Washington State as home and away, even if a new upper tier was closed at 3 or 4 conferences. That's 9 of 12 out West. That's as good as it gets for them in this scenario.

If those which remain in the Big 12/PAC earn no more than the 32 million offered to the Big 12 then ESPN has more inventory at essentially the same cost, and it would take 120 million total for the ACC moves (actual added revenue boost for the PAC additions plus all 20 getting a 5 million bump. The new Big 12/PAC assemblage is a wash as to overhead and the combining of them actually adds a little value. The boost in markets covers the 120 million easily between increased viewership and the ACCN reach. FSU pays for itself in the SEC and adds T1 content and Kansas boosts the winter value of the SEC basketball and remains a sleeping giant awaiting the breakaway of upper tier schools from the NCAA's hold on hoops.

In short Xlance, it's doable.

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 02:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 01:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think Cincy and WVU are the only East Coast schools that the ACC may invite at this point. If and when FSU leaves, add UCF/USF in the mix.

I find that a very plausible priority list.

Creating West Coast partnerships to open a new division on the Pacific... that's another level of strategizing—and risk—altogether. That's going deep.

If the pass connects, we'll hear about it. If not, we probably won't.

Let's examine the players out west and rate them for congruence for -
Overall Cultural Fit
Academic Fit
PTB Culture Fit
Bringing Solid Football Culture
Bringing TV Eyeballs

Lets rate them 0, 1, 2, 3 with three being the best.

15 Utah
13 Washington
12 Arizona State, Arizona
11 Oregon
10 Colorado
9 Stanford
8 Oregon State, Washington State, Cal

Utah, Washington, ASU, and UA would fit almost seamlessly into the ACC, but they could also fit seamlessly into the B10, SEC, or B12.

Oregon, Colorado, and Stanford will have issues most everywhere. Nike is an issue for Oregon and I don;t know how you fix that and Oregon is not the academic institution it was 30 years. Colorado has almost the the same set of issues as Stanford, except the issues are running 15 years behind Stanford. OSU and WSU do not add anything. Cal is not worth the potential political trouble.

SCB, how would you rate SDSU? I like San Diego much more than Northern Cal.

(12-22-2022 12:28 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 03:39 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(12-21-2022 02:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 01:23 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I think Cincy and WVU are the only East Coast schools that the ACC may invite at this point. If and when FSU leaves, add UCF/USF in the mix.

I find that a very plausible priority list.

Creating West Coast partnerships to open a new division on the Pacific... that's another level of strategizing—and risk—altogether. That's going deep.

If the pass connects, we'll hear about it. If not, we probably won't.

Let's examine the players out west and rate them for congruence for -
Overall Cultural Fit
Academic Fit
PTB Culture Fit
Bringing Solid Football Culture
Bringing TV Eyeballs

Lets rate them 0, 1, 2, 3 with three being the best.

15 Utah
13 Washington
12 Arizona State, Arizona
11 Oregon
10 Colorado
9 Stanford
8 Oregon State, Washington State, Cal

Utah, Washington, ASU, and UA would fit almost seamlessly into the ACC, but they could also fit seamlessly into the B10, SEC, or B12.

Oregon, Colorado, and Stanford will have issues most everywhere. Nike is an issue for Oregon and I don;t know how you fix that and Oregon is not the academic institution it was 30 years. Colorado has almost the the same set of issues as Stanford, except the issues are running 15 years behind Stanford. OSU and WSU do not add anything. Cal is not worth the potential political trouble.

SCB, how would you rate SDSU? I like San Diego much more than Northern Cal.

The two systems in California have prevented San Diego from having membership in the Pacific Conference. SDSU is a fine school - ARWU ranks it with Auburn, Baylor, ISU, KSU, MSU, Ok State, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. But by being in the State system they are barred from certain doctoral programs and research. For the benefit of the City and the Region, UCSD and SDSU ought to be merged. I've only been to San Diego for two days and can't really expound other than to say they are different from Southern California and Northern California.

There is nothing of interest on the west coast for the ACC.........nothing.

So let's just give the SEC poster(s), and some of the more vocal FSU posters what they want......which is each other.
Yep! FSU to the SEC in exchange for South Carolina and Vanderbilt. The ACC can then pick up USF for continued exposure in central Florida and a very compatible 16.
The SEC guys can then grab Kansas if they refuse to sign the new Big 12 GOR and finally have something other than their one-trick-pony to market for basketball.