so technically you are correct. Just a reminder, Texas and Oklahoma voted against expansion, then left. USC and UCLA voted against expansion, then announced their departure the next year. I find it very suspect that CO, FSU, and NC voted against expansion. There were others in the PAC that voted against expansion, and two of them don't have a home, so that might explain NC State if the reports are true. It's very concerning to me and my team is not in your conference. I don't want a "P3", I'll take a P4 at this point. If the schools that have a landing spot in the BIG or SEC are preventing the ones that don't from the ability to survive, it's bad pool. The remaining PAC schools still own the NCAA units from the past 6 years, and it's reported to be 10-15M annually until they expire. The PAC could still coble a conference, but they need a media partner to do it. FBS requires 8 teams to be a FBS conference, but there is a two year grace period if a conference falls below that number. AAU Universities from the AAC include, USF, Rice, Tulane, add SMU, and they have eight. The buyout in the Mountain West is tough, but Utah state is AAU, and then you have SDSU and Colorado State that would be good market additions to go with OSU and Washington state. It wouldn't be difficult to find a 12th. the PAC also has the infrastructure for a network, they just need a media partner. 15M to 20M a year in media dollars is not unreasonable in today's market. Maybe the PAC isn't done.

Per Pat Forde: "Four schools stood opposed when the issue was discussed Wednesday night, sources say: Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina and North Carolina State. Lacking the requisite numbers, sources say it is unlikely that the potential expansion of the league will be put to a formal vote. Sources described ACC members Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and Louisville as among the most vocal in advocating for the Cardinal and Golden Bears to join the league." TBH, I'm surprised there aren't more than 4 NO votes. I feel like this decision independent of the FSU problem. But maybe I'm wrong. I think NC State will vote like UNC votes. So basically UNC is keeping Cal and Stanford out. I just think FSU is just so disagreeable that they are going to vote NO to anything the ACC wants to do. Not sure about Clemson. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 8/11/2023, 7:41:30 PM

When it came time to vote on inviting Miami, BC, SU, UNC & Duke were always an absolute no. That effectively gave UVA a veto vote. As long as VT wasn't invited, UVA voted no. Once we were in, and SU effectively dropped, UVA voted yes. Don't know if it was at UVA's request or not, but schools were voted on individually, w/ VT being first.

Also reminds me of Oklahoma/Texas voting against expanding Big XII in 2016. We know how those two conferences played out. But the ACC is 13 years left on the existing term. So don't know the logic. But would be interesting to understand the position of them.

Ditto for Duke. And in retrospect, maybe they weren't wrong 🤣.

going elsewhere soon. SEC-FSU and Clemson Big 10 Unc Ncs

The employees running Tech hate Tech.

But ask me again tomorrow. Things are moving so fast, it's hard to make any sense out of it. I really have no opinion on it yet. But I think only two teams from the West Coast isn't enough. Crazy travel on Cal and Stan. Not sure why they would do it TBH. If the money is right, I'd prefer if Oregon State and Wazzu would come along. And even then. Just 4 teams from the West is crazy. Yeah, the B1G is doing it, I know. But they are also getting the big names and travel isn't quite as far.

... over Stanford & Cal.

They are serious about football and would win their fair share of games in the conference. That's probably why the ACC had balked at their proposal. LOL. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 8/12/2023, 11:30:02 AM

... they are fully committed. Funding themselves for the 1st 5-7 years screams commitment.

** Edited by tarheelblue at 8/11/2023, 6:38:26 PM

I’m starting to wonder if it’s a bit of subterfuge here to give ND their bullet points for when they eventually leave the conference. I’ve always felt Stanford should have been a lock for the Big Ten, specifically given the need for a fleshed out West Coast division and then also the relationship with Notre Dame. This continues to set the stage for that. The Notre Dame posters here have given all the information regarding why ND wants their independence. But ND also knows where this is headed. Everybody outside the P2 is getting squeezed here and it’s eventually going to limit ND’s access to the playoff as well as their ability to secure competitive media rights to keep up with the P2. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/11/2023, 6:35:43 PM

Into it in order to keep up with the SEC. And once they had accepted USC and UCLA, it slowly became apparent they were going to need more than two teams out west, so they reluctantly accepted Oregon and Washington , but at reduced rates, because they really didn't want them. I don't think the big 10 is going to be very motivated to invite more teams out west, what they have done has been done with reluctance.

More reduced payouts than Or. and Wash. right now I think both schools would jump for next to nothing, just to have a home in the power2. And you can’t tell me the big 10 can’t work out a west coast schedule for those 6 schools.

So go to major media markets where you can see your large alumni bases infiltrating and plant your flags. LA, Seattle, Portland are in the bag. Bay Area and Phoenix would be the last two west coast targets. Miami, Charlotte for the east coast. Potentially ATL but the SEC has such a stranglehold, GT would give the B1G nothing there.

powder dry for ACC targets - culturally Standford and Cal are a bad fit

makes sense. The PAC was destroyed because they didn't take the 30M reported offer from ESPN, as it included ESPN taking over the PACN. So the entire conference implodes? I call BS.