Maybe SMU boosters are paying for it ?

(09-29-2023 09:09 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  Still think Stanford/Cal are the trojan horses put into the ACC to help dissolve the conference. Give them assurances that they have a landing spot in the Big Ten and they can help dissolve the ACC with their votes. Of course, SMU throws this whole thing out of whack because they would likely be a "no" vote to dissolve.

Wouldn't that be illegal? I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but it's hard to imagine StanCal getting its hands that dirty and very likely getting caught at some point.

(09-29-2023 09:26 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 09:09 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  Still think Stanford/Cal are the trojan horses put into the ACC to help dissolve the conference. Give them assurances that they have a landing spot in the Big Ten and they can help dissolve the ACC with their votes. Of course, SMU throws this whole thing out of whack because they would likely be a "no" vote to dissolve.

Wouldn't that be illegal? I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but it's hard to imagine StanCal getting its hands that dirty and very likely getting caught at some point.

Nope... no collusion involved, as FSU/Clemson/UNC have voted against them and that vote is very much on the record.

I don't think the B1G will end up taking the Bay schools anytime soon. Just Stanford... not Cal. It's going to be Stanford, FSU, Clemson, ND, UNC, Miami that are the main B1G targets. There is your 24 (UVa and Duke/GaTech if ND declines, meaning Stanford is out as well).

(09-29-2023 10:00 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 09:26 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 09:09 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  Still think Stanford/Cal are the trojan horses put into the ACC to help dissolve the conference. Give them assurances that they have a landing spot in the Big Ten and they can help dissolve the ACC with their votes. Of course, SMU throws this whole thing out of whack because they would likely be a "no" vote to dissolve.

Wouldn't that be illegal? I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but it's hard to imagine StanCal getting its hands that dirty and very likely getting caught at some point.

Nope... no collusion involved, as FSU/Clemson/UNC have voted against them and that vote is very much on the record.

I don't think the B1G will end up taking the Bay schools anytime soon. Just Stanford... not Cal. It's going to be Stanford, FSU, Clemson, ND, UNC, Miami that are the main B1G targets. There is your 24 (UVa and Duke/GaTech if ND declines, meaning Stanford is out as well).

Adding Stanford at this point would be analogous to adding Princeton. What do they add besides academic prestige? Cornell on the other hand...

(09-29-2023 07:15 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 06:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

That tweet actually sounds like a CYA for both the paper AND the school. "Make it clear we DO NOT (yet) have an official invite". Brought to you by the Clemson legal team.

It reads to me like David Hood REALLY wanted to give us better news, but all he has is "All's quiet on the Eastern Front". I'm expecting a bunch more posts like this from him and people like him for the next 10 years.

(09-29-2023 07:38 AM)LaBradfordsTWill Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 08:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 08:24 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 05:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 05:28 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  you don't know that and they might come w/ UNC. Uva could be gone already. VT and GT on the field aren't as good as NCSU.

In the SEC N.C. State's attendance would be 4th from the bottom out of 20 schools. Virginia Tech would be 14th out of the proposed 20 schools, 6th from the bottom.

For the record West Virginia would only be ahead of Vanderbilt. (and this isn't addressed to Fresno St. Alum but to ArmyMike.

UVa is not gone already. And Georgia Tech attendance is lower than West Virginia's, but still just above Vanderbilt's.

Virginia Tech, record or not, easily beats that field you listed for candidates.

The SEC will be looking at revenue generation, especially non media money, including athletics donations, gate, concessions, and signage earnings. Those reflect the level of support far better than media revenue. They will look at the average travel crowd. They will look at facilities, seating capacity, and ease of access to the campus via airline and road. They will also look to see what the school offers the SEC athletically and academically. This is why Duke, in spite of horrid attendance, could be considered.

The 2nd and 3rd highest valuations for the ACC belong to Florida State and Clemson. Louisville is #1, Virginia Tech is 4th, and North Carolina is 5th, Syracuse 6th and Duke is 7th.

We have all of this data available in the important threads section between the SEC forum, the P5 sub forum and the CS /CR main board and all of it is pinned in the important thread's sections of these forums.

When people make wild speculations about realignment these should be consulted. It spares some named by posters embarrassment and makes the whole process of selection make more sense.

How is UL’s valuation that high? Not doubting you, but just from an eyeballs on TV’s perspective…I wouldn’t expect them to add much to a conference’s coffers. Perhaps they’re a bigger brand than I give them credit for or the one-two punch of good football and basketball brings more to the table.

Louisville is highly unusual in that they've got such a strong basketball tradition but also bring it in Football, too. Their revenues are much closer to FSU's than they are to NC St's in fact. We've talked about them a lot, but they might have the worst geography of any P2 candidate. 76 miles from Lexington, and UK is stronger in both FB and basketball in their state. 100 miles from bloomington, and Indiana has a stronger basketball history. go out 200 miles and they get to West Lafayette and Columbus. Gulp. Neither of the P2 needs or wants a school in that region, and Louisville isn't a Brand on the order of Clemson that forces you to take note of them despite their geography.

UK is definitely not stronger than UofL in football historically and definitely not now with Brohm running the show. We blew by Indiana years ago in everything. Cincinnati is still playing catch up with us. Ohio State is too far removed geographically to matter in the Louisville DMA. Louisville's basketball is the revenue producer that drives the bus. We were #1 on Forbes in valuation for basketball putting in revenues greater than many P5 football programs.

Still I don't want my Cardinals in the SEC or the B1G. Sharing a conference with UK is gross. Sharing a conference with Ohio State and Indiana is equally as gross. The money be damned.

I have nothing but respect for Louisville Athletics, but I gotta ask: was that #1 Forbes MBB valuation before or after your 4th and final win last season? You guys shot yourselves in the foot in basketball when you ran Pitino out of town while KU, Arizona and others stood by their coaches despite that dirty FBI investigation, and they've come out unscathed while your team has fallen off a cliff. In football?

Louisivlle: 74-53 in last 10 years with 3 top 25 finishes

Kentucky: 66-59 in last 10 years, 2 top 25 finishes

If you look at the past 5 years, Kentucky is better. This season, both schools are 4-0. I'd say that you're roughly equivalent in football. Brohm did a pretty good job at Purdue and he's on track to do well at Louisville, but it's only been 4 games. Stoops has turned around Kentucky over the past decade and has them achieving some success in football finally. Factor in Kentucky's overwhelming (current) superiority in MBB and equal standing in Athletics Revenue, and it's tough to say that Louisville has the edge on Kentucky unless you're a diehard Cardinals fan.

(09-29-2023 07:42 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 11:46 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 10:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 09:16 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 05:01 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  The B1G does NOT want Clemson or FSU. They only want AAU schools (UNC, VA, GA TECH, MIAMI).

SEC maybe takes Clemson, FSU, NC State, Va Tech someday, but SEC has made it clear they have little interest in expanding. FSU doesn't give them anything they don't already have. Hell, if the ACC goes belly up, they'd probably rather have Miami in a completely different market than FL or FSU.

If anything, I kind of thing FSU and Clemson are someday headed for the B12 along with Louisville and Pitt (when ACC goes away).

Did someone find a forgotten stash of leftover Dude cigars in the attic?

Remember when everyone in the poor, pathetic ACC starving for a path to the playoffs was going to stampede to the B12, leaving Pitt alone and stranded to the eternal delight of WV trolls? And the SEC had a 'gentlemen's agreement' and the B1G an AAU requirement that were as ironclad as any GoR? Maryland and Clemson and Florida State were going to live happily ever after playing Texas and Oklahoma in the filthy rich, GoR-guaranteed big-boy B12 as they packed their home stadiums with crowds dying to catch those must-see games against Iowa State and Baylor? And everyone was going to make piles of money so high Notre Dame would want to join the B12, too?

Yeah, those were some wild smokes...

FSU and Clemson would be in a whole lot better shape today with different leadership that paid attention to those Big 12 overtures. They wouldn't be stuck for 14 more years in a GOR. They would be heading to the SEC.

If FSU and Clemson had joined the Big 12, ESPN probably would have been eager to negotiate early and OUT would not have left. That would have been a really nice 12 team Conference. Fortunately, things didn't work out that way.

Oh sure, sure. Now Clemson and FSU would have kept Texas in the Big 12?

It's hard to say for certain, but based upon statements from summer 2021, OUT started considering their exit when ESPN refused to discuss an early renegotiation and/or extension with the Big 12. Certainly they'd heard rumblings about what the new B1G contract was going to look like. If FSU and Clemson were in the Big 12, they'd have every reason to expect a B1G-like or SEC-like media right agreement. That doesn't mean that they'd definitely have stayed, but I'd say that it increases the odds that they would have, and it increases the odds that ESPN would have been more enthusiastic about locking them all up long term. Consider what a new ACC deal 2 years ago would have looked like if they had OUT. Put Clemson and FSU in the Big 12 instead of OUT in the ACC, and they'd offer that same deal to the Big 12.

(09-29-2023 09:05 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:41 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:30 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:26 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:23 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The entire premise of this thread is that somehow Clemson...and presumably FSU...can walk out if the ACC GOR in a short time period. This is the same GOR holding the Big12 together.

It seems to me that the ACC is still a better fit for many Big12 schools. That might also include Utah or ASU.

You're a little biased on that front, though, so that's not surprising. Not sure the fans of those schools, at least WVU and UC, agree, though.

Then flip the view.

Why would Louisville, Syracuse, UVA, VT, Duke, GT, Pitt etc join a collection of schools that they had repeatedly turned down when they were available? Why wouldn't they hold steady and invite who they chose? The TV deal is still for 13 years at above the amount of the Big12.

There's a couple of assumptions there, though. The delta between the XII and ACC's media payouts appears to be mostly based on the ACC Network. So, that's using the assumption that the ACC Network continues to be profitable (or even exist) for another 13 years while cable goes through its death throes. Additionally, the XII will sign at least one, maybe even two, new deals before that ACC deal is up. And you'd have to assume that the ACC continues to be paid more, while possibly losing their most valuable members.

That's a lot of lot assumptions in a very uncertain future. Possible? Sure. Would I bet the farm on it? No.

And what if the B1G and Fox want to cover more from their own conference games and leave their share of the Big 12 to ESPN whom suddenly are in a position to have to pay out a lot more mouths to feed and decide to “PAC” the Big 12 cutting the payout as the only viable option . ESPN still owns the ACC option and could move Big 12 pieces there

ESPN hasn't had a very good year. How much clout will they have in 2031? I still think that they'll be the Big Dog, but I'm less confident in that today than I've ever been. Fox? Comcast? CBS? Apple? Amazon? TBS? CW? Some new players? There's a lot that could change by 2031, and even if your scenario plays out mostly as you wrote it, there's no reason that the Big 12 couldn't bring on a 2nd partner in Fox's spot, or even 2 new partners to replace both ESPN and Fox.

(09-29-2023 09:26 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 09:09 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  Still think Stanford/Cal are the trojan horses put into the ACC to help dissolve the conference. Give them assurances that they have a landing spot in the Big Ten and they can help dissolve the ACC with their votes. Of course, SMU throws this whole thing out of whack because they would likely be a "no" vote to dissolve.

Wouldn't that be illegal? I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but it's hard to imagine StanCal getting its hands that dirty and very likely getting caught at some point.

There might be a case for a successful civil lawsuit if that happened and it could be proven, but I don't see how it would violate any criminal statutes. It's more like the Comcast v. PACN brouhaha: sure, that was a dirty thing for the PACN to do, or not do really, but it was Comcast's ineptitude in the first place that caused the issue.

(09-28-2023 01:15 PM)Jericho Wrote:  Maybe I'm being too logical (damn you Logic!), but if Clemson knew it was leaving the ACC in August, why wait 2 more months to "announce" in October and get stuck staying the ACC an additional year (since the cut-off date was August 15). And why are the only people that know about the plan from some more obscure media sources. Doesn't really pass the smell test to me.

Magnificent Seven.

A list of seven schools went out. Nothing in the ACC has been the same since.

Maybe if you're Clemson, the vote in August to admit Cal, SMU and Stanford crystallised the timetable for you.

All of your plans to date have been made on the premise that X number of sympathetic votes would help you keep your exit costs down. Schools voting on your toll fee would be setting precedent for themselves.

Now you're looking at the addition of three new members next year. That turns any vote over exit costs into more of an unknown. You have incentive to get any exit decisions made by the present membership.

As for the August 15 deadline: With important membership issues up for decision in August, ACC members may well have voted to move that into October. An extension would give everyone time to assess their choices in the wake (so to speak) of the expansion vote.

Others in the league aren't necessarily hostile to you. The league's other members know what you want. By voting to expand the league protected itself against potential damage to its ESPN contract should you depart. As long as your departure and the new arrivals are timed right, the league can move on without skipping a heartbeat.

Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina could all leave just as Cal, SMU and Stanford are all walking in, and the current media contract would stay put.

(09-29-2023 01:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 09:26 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 09:09 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  Still think Stanford/Cal are the trojan horses put into the ACC to help dissolve the conference. Give them assurances that they have a landing spot in the Big Ten and they can help dissolve the ACC with their votes. Of course, SMU throws this whole thing out of whack because they would likely be a "no" vote to dissolve.

Wouldn't that be illegal? I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but it's hard to imagine StanCal getting its hands that dirty and very likely getting caught at some point.

There might be a case for a successful civil lawsuit if that happened and it could be proven, but I don't see how it would violate any criminal statutes. It's more like the Comcast v. PACN brouhaha: sure, that was a dirty thing for the PACN to do, or not do really, but it was Comcast's ineptitude in the first place that caused the issue.

I was thinking in terms of anti-trust laws. But I'm way out of my depth on this.

(09-29-2023 01:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-29-2023 07:38 AM)LaBradfordsTWill Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 08:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 08:24 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 05:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In the SEC N.C. State's attendance would be 4th from the bottom out of 20 schools. Virginia Tech would be 14th out of the proposed 20 schools, 6th from the bottom.

For the record West Virginia would only be ahead of Vanderbilt. (and this isn't addressed to Fresno St. Alum but to ArmyMike.

UVa is not gone already. And Georgia Tech attendance is lower than West Virginia's, but still just above Vanderbilt's.

Virginia Tech, record or not, easily beats that field you listed for candidates.

The SEC will be looking at revenue generation, especially non media money, including athletics donations, gate, concessions, and signage earnings. Those reflect the level of support far better than media revenue. They will look at the average travel crowd. They will look at facilities, seating capacity, and ease of access to the campus via airline and road. They will also look to see what the school offers the SEC athletically and academically. This is why Duke, in spite of horrid attendance, could be considered.

The 2nd and 3rd highest valuations for the ACC belong to Florida State and Clemson. Louisville is #1, Virginia Tech is 4th, and North Carolina is 5th, Syracuse 6th and Duke is 7th.

We have all of this data available in the important threads section between the SEC forum, the P5 sub forum and the CS /CR main board and all of it is pinned in the important thread's sections of these forums.

When people make wild speculations about realignment these should be consulted. It spares some named by posters embarrassment and makes the whole process of selection make more sense.

How is UL’s valuation that high? Not doubting you, but just from an eyeballs on TV’s perspective…I wouldn’t expect them to add much to a conference’s coffers. Perhaps they’re a bigger brand than I give them credit for or the one-two punch of good football and basketball brings more to the table.

Louisville is highly unusual in that they've got such a strong basketball tradition but also bring it in Football, too. Their revenues are much closer to FSU's than they are to NC St's in fact. We've talked about them a lot, but they might have the worst geography of any P2 candidate. 76 miles from Lexington, and UK is stronger in both FB and basketball in their state. 100 miles from bloomington, and Indiana has a stronger basketball history. go out 200 miles and they get to West Lafayette and Columbus. Gulp. Neither of the P2 needs or wants a school in that region, and Louisville isn't a Brand on the order of Clemson that forces you to take note of them despite their geography.

UK is definitely not stronger than UofL in football historically and definitely not now with Brohm running the show. We blew by Indiana years ago in everything. Cincinnati is still playing catch up with us. Ohio State is too far removed geographically to matter in the Louisville DMA. Louisville's basketball is the revenue producer that drives the bus. We were #1 on Forbes in valuation for basketball putting in revenues greater than many P5 football programs.

Still I don't want my Cardinals in the SEC or the B1G. Sharing a conference with UK is gross. Sharing a conference with Ohio State and Indiana is equally as gross. The money be damned.

I have nothing but respect for Louisville Athletics, but I gotta ask: was that #1 Forbes MBB valuation before or after your 4th and final win last season? You guys shot yourselves in the foot in basketball when you ran Pitino out of town while KU, Arizona and others stood by their coaches despite that dirty FBI investigation, and they've come out unscathed while your team has fallen off a cliff. In football?

Louisivlle: 74-53 in last 10 years with 3 top 25 finishes

Kentucky: 66-59 in last 10 years, 2 top 25 finishes

If you look at the past 5 years, Kentucky is better. This season, both schools are 4-0. I'd say that you're roughly equivalent in football. Brohm did a pretty good job at Purdue and he's on track to do well at Louisville, but it's only been 4 games. Stoops has turned around Kentucky over the past decade and has them achieving some success in football finally. Factor in Kentucky's overwhelming (current) superiority in MBB and equal standing in Athletics Revenue, and it's tough to say that Louisville has the edge on Kentucky unless you're a diehard Cardinals fan.

Exactly what Cardinal fans mostly agree on was Why didn’t Louisville stand firm on Pitino as other schools did with Their top rated coaches. It’s a mistake that cost Tom Jurich His job too that His only charge was standing up for Rick and not firing Him. Tom should have never been fired. That was and is the only reason Bobby Petrino stopped trying to win games for Louisville . The then newly hired University President had zero knowledge or interest in sports and later left without any warning Herself but only after the replacement for Jurich also announced His leaving after internal conflict with the President. No telling how our program would be had that University President and her interim president whom had strong UK ties activity worked against the athletic department. I’m going from memory but I’m old so timeline might be a hair off