(03-11-2024 10:38 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 10:31 AM)esayem Wrote:  It's actually highly debatable. You have no idea what ESPN wants; the ACCN is highly profitable and that doesn't have anything to do with FSU or even Clemson football.

Nobody does divisions anymore. Move on. Those programs don't want to kill their basketball program like UConn did by playing tournaments in Ft. Worth. That isn't changing and that isn't debatable.

PLUS you're forgetting Notre Dame just signed up with NBC and has vested interest in keeping the ACC around as evidence by your wet dream Stanford and Cal joining. You need to give up on them, it's okay.

Everything you're predicting relies on the unlikelihood ESPN pulls the plug, which doesn't make sense because 1) they have the ACC at a great price for a guaranteed rate and 2) the ACCN is profitable and FSU and Clemson leaving doesn't affect that, in fact, adding your West Coast love interests and SMU only makes it more profitable.

Yeah, keep hedging everything on the ACCN, something ESPN can kill in a year’s time unilaterally. Will they? I don’t know. Will they if FSU Clemson UNC negotiate out? Yes, with 90% certainty. No way they are paying those distributions unilaterally. Splitting the costs with other TV partners or selling a share seems likely.

The ACCN makes ESPN money. I've already explained why those schools leaving doesn't affect it. The ACC just needs to stay in FLA and South Florida isn't going anywhere else.

If Carolina leaves without State, they will be sending large checks to Raleigh because it is the desire of the BOG that the two remain at a competitive balance. So Carolina would need to decide if it is worth it to pay a giant exit fee, GOR penalties, and then send a substantial amount to Raleigh.

(03-11-2024 10:44 AM)otown Wrote:  Yormack is sabotaging the ACC. He knows the likelihood of defections are high in that conference compared to his own. A look in during that time will destabilize that conference more, or at the minimum make their share of the CFP money go down. Where the extra share goes is most likely the SEC/B1G majority, but the Big 12 would get the remainder.....which is a net positive for them and separate them from a reconstructed ACC.

Or if/when FSU leaves he wants the distributions recalculated. Any conference commissioner should urge look-ins every few years because there seems to be a performance based aspect. Hence, the ACC currently receiving a larger cut than the Big XII.

(03-11-2024 11:20 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 10:44 AM)otown Wrote:  Yormack is sabotaging the ACC. He knows the likelihood of defections are high in that conference compared to his own. A look in during that time will destabilize that conference more, or at the minimum make their share of the CFP money go down. Where the extra share goes is most likely the SEC/B1G majority, but the Big 12 would get the remainder.....which is a net positive for them and separate them from a reconstructed ACC.

Or if/when FSU leaves he wants the distributions recalculated. Any conference commissioner should urge look-ins every few years because there seems to be a performance based aspect. Hence, the ACC currently receiving a larger cut than the Big XII.

This could be.

There isn't any decision yet. I would think Yormack would suggest the SEC should get a bigger share than the Big 10 if the ACC was given more than the Big 12.

If you look at the top 12 over the BCS/CFP era, based on current membership, participants would be:
SEC 103
Big 10 88
ACC 49
Big 12 46
Notre Dame 9
Other 17

If you look at the CFP 4 teams:
SEC 17 (6 titles)
Big 10 12 (2 titles)
ACC 7 (2 titles)
Big 12 2 (0 titles)
Notre Dame 2 (0 titles)

Of course, a more realistic look at the CFP (which explains why we need to go to 12):
Alabama 8 (3 titles)
Georgia 3 (2 titles)
Oklahoma 4 (0 titles)
Ohio St. 5 (1 title)
Michigan 3 (1 title)
Clemson 6 (2 titles)
Everybody else-9 schools 11 (1 title)

If you look at who has been in the NY6, it does balance out to a P2/M2/G5.
SEC 39 (12 teams)
Big 10 38 (9 teams)
Big 12 17 (10 teams)
ACC 17 (7 teams)
ND 4
G5 5

Alabama/Georgia/Oklahoma/Ohio St./Michigan/Clemson have 44 of the 120 slots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Six

(03-11-2024 10:11 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:31 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Quote:The contract is expected to include a definitive “look-in” provision in 2028. The look-in provision can be triggered before that date from any conference realignment — a provision that Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark encouraged to be added, according to those familiar with the discussions.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-fo...19343.html

Yormark is clearly expecting more realignment on the horizon. This clause gives us some time for the realignment dominoes to fall before we adjust the CFP distribution.

Yormark has been aggressive in realignment and I think this suggests a different tactic. I think collaboration between the ACC and Big 12 will become more prevalent in an effort to combat the Power 2 movement. He set this 2028 timeline to see if they can work together. Maybe, The Great Consolidation Conference is not built from hostile poaching but a more collaborative merger.

Interesting though it could backfire if both the XII and ACC lose teams and the P2 ups the money cut to 70%.

I’d don’t see how it could backfire on the Big 12. It’s already been poached, any desirable teams have been taken. He’s betting on the Big 12 stability.

In fact, a merger would allow for the ACC to have some stability as well. Grow so larger that poaching doesn’t impact their position.

(03-11-2024 09:31 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Quote:The contract is expected to include a definitive “look-in” provision in 2028. The look-in provision can be triggered before that date from any conference realignment — a provision that Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark encouraged to be added, according to those familiar with the discussions.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-fo...19343.html

Yormark is clearly expecting more realignment on the horizon. This clause gives us some time for the realignment dominoes to fall before we adjust the CFP distribution.

Yormark has been aggressive in realignment and I think this suggests a different tactic. I think collaboration between the ACC and Big 12 will become more prevalent in an effort to combat the Power 2 movement. He set this 2028 timeline to see if they can work together. Maybe, The Great Consolidation Conference is not built from hostile poaching but a more collaborative merger.

There are a lot of good reasons for look-ins...not the least of which is that you don't want any conference to get complacent about creating value. That applies equally to the B12, ACC, B1G and SEC. Regardless of whether there is any further realignment between now and 2028, you don't want conferences to feel entitled to negotiated bids or financial distributions. If a conference isn't providing CFP worthy participants or national championship-caliber teams, then the look-in allows the parties to fix an imbalance. If paying athletes dramatically changes the landscape, look-ins provide guardrails so that the CFP isn't leveraged in some warped fashion.

With regards to the theory of a Great Consolidation Conference, it would take the B1G and SEC each growing to 20 (possibly more) members before that approach makes sense for the ACC and B12. IMO media companies are stuck in a paradox where they don't want conference consolidation, but they need the brand programs to stay/join the conferences that they fund. I still don't expect a mass movement of schools in realignment because it's hard to have all parties benefitting from the restructuring.

(03-11-2024 12:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:31 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Quote:The contract is expected to include a definitive “look-in” provision in 2028. The look-in provision can be triggered before that date from any conference realignment — a provision that Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark encouraged to be added, according to those familiar with the discussions.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-fo...19343.html

Yormark is clearly expecting more realignment on the horizon. This clause gives us some time for the realignment dominoes to fall before we adjust the CFP distribution.

Yormark has been aggressive in realignment and I think this suggests a different tactic. I think collaboration between the ACC and Big 12 will become more prevalent in an effort to combat the Power 2 movement. He set this 2028 timeline to see if they can work together. Maybe, The Great Consolidation Conference is not built from hostile poaching but a more collaborative merger.

There are a lot of good reasons for look-ins...not the least of which is that you don't want any conference to get complacent about creating value. That applies equally to the B12, ACC, B1G and SEC. Regardless of whether there is any further realignment between now and 2028, you don't want conferences to feel entitled to negotiated bids or financial distributions. If a conference isn't providing CFP worthy participants or national championship-caliber teams, then the look-in allows the parties to fix an imbalance. If paying athletes dramatically changes the landscape, look-ins provide guardrails so that the CFP isn't leveraged in some warped fashion.

With regards to the theory of a Great Consolidation Conference, it would take the B1G and SEC each growing to 20 (possibly more) members before that approach makes sense for the ACC and B12. IMO media companies are stuck in a paradox where they don't want conference consolidation, but they need the brand programs to stay/join the conferences that they fund. I still don't expect a mass movement of schools in realignment because it's hard to have all parties benefitting from the restructuring.

2028 is only 2 years into the new deal.

Just feels like a release valve to me. If you don't like the current Distribution, we get a couple years to improve our position before we renegotiate for the remaining 4 years.

(03-11-2024 10:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  When it comes to a potential post-P2 raid merger of the ACC and Big 12, I think you have to consider whose going to fall in what camp:

Cal, Stanford, and Duke are going to vehemently oppose commingling with the Big 12. WF is going to vote however Duke does. GT might be in this camp too.

SMU and Louisville are going to be very much in favor of a merger.

It really comes down to what the NE trio of Pitt/Cuse/BC and NC St and VT want to do. Is there enough interest in a merger among that group to pull the rest in kicking and screaming?

Louisville would certainly look favorably at The Big 12 but I’m not so sure about a merger.

(03-11-2024 12:23 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 12:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:31 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Quote:The contract is expected to include a definitive “look-in” provision in 2028. The look-in provision can be triggered before that date from any conference realignment — a provision that Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark encouraged to be added, according to those familiar with the discussions.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-fo...19343.html

Yormark is clearly expecting more realignment on the horizon. This clause gives us some time for the realignment dominoes to fall before we adjust the CFP distribution.

Yormark has been aggressive in realignment and I think this suggests a different tactic. I think collaboration between the ACC and Big 12 will become more prevalent in an effort to combat the Power 2 movement. He set this 2028 timeline to see if they can work together. Maybe, The Great Consolidation Conference is not built from hostile poaching but a more collaborative merger.

There are a lot of good reasons for look-ins...not the least of which is that you don't want any conference to get complacent about creating value. That applies equally to the B12, ACC, B1G and SEC. Regardless of whether there is any further realignment between now and 2028, you don't want conferences to feel entitled to negotiated bids or financial distributions. If a conference isn't providing CFP worthy participants or national championship-caliber teams, then the look-in allows the parties to fix an imbalance. If paying athletes dramatically changes the landscape, look-ins provide guardrails so that the CFP isn't leveraged in some warped fashion.

With regards to the theory of a Great Consolidation Conference, it would take the B1G and SEC each growing to 20 (possibly more) members before that approach makes sense for the ACC and B12. IMO media companies are stuck in a paradox where they don't want conference consolidation, but they need the brand programs to stay/join the conferences that they fund. I still don't expect a mass movement of schools in realignment because it's hard to have all parties benefitting from the restructuring.

2028 is only 2 years into the new deal.

Just feels like a release valve to me. If you don't like the current Distribution, we get a couple years to improve our position before we renegotiate for the remaining 4 years.

It’s 4 years into the expanded CFP. That’s what is being used to justify the payouts.

(03-11-2024 12:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 12:23 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 12:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:31 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

Quote:The contract is expected to include a definitive “look-in” provision in 2028. The look-in provision can be triggered before that date from any conference realignment — a provision that Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark encouraged to be added, according to those familiar with the discussions.

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-fo...19343.html

Yormark is clearly expecting more realignment on the horizon. This clause gives us some time for the realignment dominoes to fall before we adjust the CFP distribution.

Yormark has been aggressive in realignment and I think this suggests a different tactic. I think collaboration between the ACC and Big 12 will become more prevalent in an effort to combat the Power 2 movement. He set this 2028 timeline to see if they can work together. Maybe, The Great Consolidation Conference is not built from hostile poaching but a more collaborative merger.

There are a lot of good reasons for look-ins...not the least of which is that you don't want any conference to get complacent about creating value. That applies equally to the B12, ACC, B1G and SEC. Regardless of whether there is any further realignment between now and 2028, you don't want conferences to feel entitled to negotiated bids or financial distributions. If a conference isn't providing CFP worthy participants or national championship-caliber teams, then the look-in allows the parties to fix an imbalance. If paying athletes dramatically changes the landscape, look-ins provide guardrails so that the CFP isn't leveraged in some warped fashion.

With regards to the theory of a Great Consolidation Conference, it would take the B1G and SEC each growing to 20 (possibly more) members before that approach makes sense for the ACC and B12. IMO media companies are stuck in a paradox where they don't want conference consolidation, but they need the brand programs to stay/join the conferences that they fund. I still don't expect a mass movement of schools in realignment because it's hard to have all parties benefitting from the restructuring.

2028 is only 2 years into the new deal.

Just feels like a release valve to me. If you don't like the current Distribution, we get a couple years to improve our position before we renegotiate for the remaining 4 years.

It’s 4 years into the expanded CFP. That’s what is being used to justify the payouts.

lol we aren't talking about the "Expanded CFP" or 12-team CFP. That distribution is already locked.

We are talking about the NEW CFP that starts in 2026, rumored to be the 14-team CFP with AQ bids but nothing committed yet.

Starts in 2026
Looks in 2028

That's 2 years of new data on a format that's only rumored.

(03-11-2024 10:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  When it comes to a potential post-P2 raid merger of the ACC and Big 12, I think you have to consider whose going to fall in what camp:

Cal, Stanford, and Duke are going to vehemently oppose commingling with the Big 12. WF is going to vote however Duke does. GT might be in this camp too.

SMU and Louisville are going to be very much in favor of a merger.

It really comes down to what the NE trio of Pitt/Cuse/BC and NC St and VT want to do. Is there enough interest in a merger among that group to pull the rest in kicking and screaming?

For the record, I don’t believe that the B1G nor SEC can (or even, want) to raid the ACC and B12. What we have is FSU wanting B1G or SEC-level conference payouts…and other brand programs closely tracking FSU’s actions.

Regardless, a merger only makes sense if the B1G and SEC are both at 20 or more members. At that point, the merged ACC and B12 would only have 20 to 28 members total. In the unlikely scenario that the B1G and SEC have expanded to 20+ members, the “camps” that exist in today’s ACC and B12 will all shift. A massive exodus of teams to the B1G and SEC ensures different politics

The only 4 calls the Big 12 should make are to Louisville, Pitt, Duke, and USF.

(03-11-2024 09:36 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Not sure what will happen with VaTech and UVa, but the P2 invites may never come.

From ESPN's most plugged-in realignment reporter:

"I would think the SEC would be happy to sit at 16 for a while because they really like their footprint," Pete Thamel said in December. "There's enough intimacy. They have a region right now. The only thing that disrupts that is if they have to play defense because they don't want the Big Ten to come into their region.

"Is that Florida State? Is that North Carolina, which is coveted. Virginia, which is coveted. I think the ranking — and people at Florida State and Clemson don't like to hear this — but it's North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson and Florida State. Or maybe Florida State (No. 3) instead of Clemson because they bring more eyeballs and TV sets. Those schools are in the crosshairs."

How many people on this board have clowned the ACC and their "Look-ins" with ESPN????????

(03-11-2024 09:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:36 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think the ACC schools left in the wake of UNC/Clemson/FSU potential departures will just pocket their exit fee money and accept Big 12 invites in 2028. No use caring for the BC/WF/'Cuse type schools if those programs just want to stick their thumbs up their butts the next five years.

GaTech, NCSU, UL, Pitt should all have standing invitations IMO. It's a perfect fit. Not sure what will happen with VaTech and UVa, but the P2 invites may never come.

That's not how exit fees work. They will create their own exit fees leaving for a western conference that makes less money.

Perfect fit? Georgia Tech couldn't even get the majority of Big XII athletes through calculus. C'mon now.

If it's just FSU and perhaps Clemson leaving, the ACC brings in South Florida and I wouldn't mind UConn, but I might be tarred and feathered if I say that on the ACC board.

If Carolina leaves as well, then look for the ACC to definitely bring in UConn as well as Villanova, Georgetown, and perhaps St. John's. Then they take over MSG.

I agree on the Virginia schools. Show me how they make the SEC and/or Big Ten money. I am not even sure Carolina does. Clemson might be neutral for the SEC.

Why let them take Calculus when they could just take a no show A class? I'm sure they can find somebody in the ACC with expertise in this area.

(03-11-2024 10:16 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:59 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  Perfect fit? Georgia Tech couldn't even get the majority of Big XII athletes through calculus. C'mon now

I stopped reading after this... this is exactly what killed the PAC10. BYU was the only school of value, but "culture and academics" still led to most of the schools ending up in the Big 12, and the Bay schools are simply biding their time, while taking massive pay cuts.

You brought up fit, not me.

How did the Pac schools not all leave for their best fit (besides geography)? Maybe Arizona State and possibly Utah are a bit peeved, but every other school did. Georgia Tech fits very well in the ACC. You could argue Big Ten, but they ain't making that oaf any money.

The academics get less and less relevant as you add more peer-like public institutions. Does UVa have a guaranteed landing spot? No. A division with UVa and VaTech/GaTech and NCSU would probably be very appealing over negotiating with ESPN and others on the open market again in a watered down ACC. Not even debateable.

After FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami are gone, then ND leaves soon afterwards. What's left?

VT
GT
NC St
Louisville

Those 4 get a home in the Big 12. Everyone else gets the 2Pac special. Or, you know, Phillips could work out a full Big 12-ACC merger NOW, work out exit fees for the 4 that are going to the P2, then maximize revenues in this Brave New Realignment World. Sure, he probably loses his job, but he could do a lot of good in the process, and he'd be the hottest job seeker in the College Sports World.

(03-11-2024 10:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  When it comes to a potential post-P2 raid merger of the ACC and Big 12, I think you have to consider whose going to fall in what camp:

Cal, Stanford, and Duke are going to vehemently oppose commingling with the Big 12. WF is going to vote however Duke does. GT might be in this camp too.

SMU and Louisville are going to be very much in favor of a merger.

It really comes down to what the NE trio of Pitt/Cuse/BC and NC St and VT want to do. Is there enough interest in a merger among that group to pull the rest in kicking and screaming?

If the ACC waits until the big boys leave, then they'll have no leverage and Yormark can just peel off the juiciest bits, leaving the rest to wither on the vine. It won't matter what any ACC schools think, it will only matter which schools the Big 12 wants. The timing of the 2nd wave of departures could be a bit drawn out, however, allowing the ACC to continue to exist as a shell of its former self.

(03-11-2024 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:36 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think the ACC schools left in the wake of UNC/Clemson/FSU potential departures will just pocket their exit fee money and accept Big 12 invites in 2028. No use caring for the BC/WF/'Cuse type schools if those programs just want to stick their thumbs up their butts the next five years.

GaTech, NCSU, UL, Pitt should all have standing invitations IMO. It's a perfect fit. Not sure what will happen with VaTech and UVa, but the P2 invites may never come.

That's not how exit fees work. They will create their own exit fees leaving for a western conference that makes less money.

Perfect fit? Georgia Tech couldn't even get the majority of Big XII athletes through calculus. C'mon now.

If it's just FSU and perhaps Clemson leaving, the ACC brings in South Florida and I wouldn't mind UConn, but I might be tarred and feathered if I say that on the ACC board.

If Carolina leaves as well, then look for the ACC to definitely bring in UConn as well as Villanova, Georgetown, and perhaps St. John's. Then they take over MSG.

I agree on the Virginia schools. Show me how they make the SEC and/or Big Ten money. I am not even sure Carolina does. Clemson might be neutral for the SEC.

Why let them take Calculus when they could just take a no show A class? I'm sure they can find somebody in the ACC with expertise in this area.

You’ve attempted to get more mileage out of that dusty old joke than aTm gets out of their football coaches

Time to fire Jimbo and get some new material

(03-11-2024 04:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 10:16 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:59 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  Perfect fit? Georgia Tech couldn't even get the majority of Big XII athletes through calculus. C'mon now

I stopped reading after this... this is exactly what killed the PAC10. BYU was the only school of value, but "culture and academics" still led to most of the schools ending up in the Big 12, and the Bay schools are simply biding their time, while taking massive pay cuts.

You brought up fit, not me.

How did the Pac schools not all leave for their best fit (besides geography)? Maybe Arizona State and possibly Utah are a bit peeved, but every other school did. Georgia Tech fits very well in the ACC. You could argue Big Ten, but they ain't making that oaf any money.

The academics get less and less relevant as you add more peer-like public institutions. Does UVa have a guaranteed landing spot? No. A division with UVa and VaTech/GaTech and NCSU would probably be very appealing over negotiating with ESPN and others on the open market again in a watered down ACC. Not even debateable.

After FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami are gone, then ND leaves soon afterwards. What's left?

VT
GT
NC St
Louisville

Those 4 get a home in the Big 12. Everyone else gets the 2Pac special. Or, you know, Phillips could work out a full Big 12-ACC merger NOW, work out exit fees for the 4 that are going to the P2, then maximize revenues in this Brave New Realignment World. Sure, he probably loses his job, but he could do a lot of good in the process, and he'd be the hottest job seeker in the College Sports World.

Where is Notre Dame going, genius? They just signed on with NBC and have quite a stake in the conference.

(03-11-2024 04:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 10:16 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:59 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(03-11-2024 09:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  Perfect fit? Georgia Tech couldn't even get the majority of Big XII athletes through calculus. C'mon now

I stopped reading after this... this is exactly what killed the PAC10. BYU was the only school of value, but "culture and academics" still led to most of the schools ending up in the Big 12, and the Bay schools are simply biding their time, while taking massive pay cuts.

You brought up fit, not me.

How did the Pac schools not all leave for their best fit (besides geography)? Maybe Arizona State and possibly Utah are a bit peeved, but every other school did. Georgia Tech fits very well in the ACC. You could argue Big Ten, but they ain't making that oaf any money.

The academics get less and less relevant as you add more peer-like public institutions. Does UVa have a guaranteed landing spot? No. A division with UVa and VaTech/GaTech and NCSU would probably be very appealing over negotiating with ESPN and others on the open market again in a watered down ACC. Not even debateable.

After FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami are gone, then ND leaves soon afterwards. What's left?

VT
GT
NC St
Louisville

Those 4 get a home in the Big 12. Everyone else gets the 2Pac special. Or, you know, Phillips could work out a full Big 12-ACC merger NOW, work out exit fees for the 4 that are going to the P2, then maximize revenues in this Brave New Realignment World. Sure, he probably loses his job, but he could do a lot of good in the process, and he'd be the hottest job seeker in the College Sports World.

You are talking about a 30 team conference at this point… 16+13 and ND on the sideline or a hybrid. It serves no one.

The ACC needs to be kept alive, unlike posters believing I want it dead tomorrow or the day after. But it needs to happen economically. I don’t see how they replace the schools in question, without at minimum, UCF. You have to keep the Big 12 out of there, as we’ve discussed in the other thread. Schools like WF and BC will certainly see this, but sure, they can make the same money with just USF plus exit fees. But that’s beside the point. You buy what UCF is today. Not what USF can be in another 4-5 years.