Clemson post indicates admin softening toward SanCalSMU invite......
Clemson Tigernet Message Board Post
Jim Williams
@JWMediaDC
Spoke to an administrator at Clemson about Stanford, Cal and SMU. " We are going through a process on the adding of these 3 fine potential members. Look we are not going to block any deal that brings more money to the conference and adds teams that brings value. We think that could be the case w/ Stanford, Cal and SMU however we are not there yet. We will continue to work to do what is the best interest of Clemson and the ACC."
79 Replies
2y
As well?, Right now ESPN does not have a major conference team based in CA in their primary tv deals
(In response to this post by Skipper64)
R
ren_hoek
2y
Nothing will pull the ACC even with the SEC, but every little bit helps. The 3 candidates are all very well respected universities too, so that helps.
I have to wonder if this move positions the ACC for an eventual raid the Big12 in 2030 to add Utah and the Arizona schools (i.e. what they should have done months ago, but sat on their hands).
Clemson will most likely leave if and when they have the right opportunity (i.e. near the end of the GOR), but they'll conduct themselves with dignity and class in the meantime (FSU, sneering in your direction).
(In response to this post by Skipper64)
I feel the academic pedigree of two of the schools___
Is simply too much of a boner for the university presidents to get over, once it really sinks in.
The only one who will never flip is FSU cause they are delusional and think they are Alabama.
(In response to this post by Skipper64)
2y
Academic additions mean nada
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
It's a joke, just like all this AAU talk about the BIG, but in the halls of university admins, it matters because those people have no an extremely warped sense of the realities of the world. It give them little chubbies when they think about it.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
I have and in my experience, your description of them is not reality
(In response to this post by Vienna_Hokie)
S
Stech
2y
people, and image like who you associate with, matters to them. Especially in the ACC and B1G. I understand your frustration with it, but particularly in those two conferences, it very much exist.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
H
HOO86
2y
The issue is whether the ACC Presidents see the revenue bump they find acceptable.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
Name 2 other FBS football schools that are better academically.
I'm not sure exactly what you think I'm frustrated with...it's not with presidents, it's with fans' fascination with mixing athletic associations and academic success/reputation.
I'm not talking simply about faculty...although where do you think presidents and chancellors start their careers almost universally? What's funny is that the university president I've been associated who is most likely to be concerned with image and associations is the rare one who isn't a career academic...the others I've gotten to know (along with other high level administrators) really aren't the stereotypical ivory tower caricatures people seem to want them to be.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
think like you do, actually I think like you do, but that doesn’t mean the majority in the ACC and B1G think that way.
As far as Stanford and the B1G, you watch, the second they think they can get Notre Dame, they will be invited. It’s one of the reasons I don’t want them, they are trying to use us like Notre Dame uses us. Jim Phillips is a Notre Dame guy, he was hired because Swofford bet the house on getting Notre Dame, and he wanted to say later he was right, even in retirement.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
McComas and Torgersen...both quite far from ivory tower snobbery. HPU president would drool all over any association with Stanford or Cal, but he's not an academic...and it's High Point. UNM president I have only briefly interacted with so far, but she seems very not ivory tower snobby too.
I have worked in the Provost's Office (which necessitated working with deans' offices) at VT during the ACC era. I don't recall "ACC" ever coming up...and, again, these are generally not people like Dean Wormer from Animal House. These are regular people.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
some of the small private schools and even to some degree the higher ranked public’s, do their cocktail parties as though they are ivies and for some of them the thought of being in a Conference with a lesser academic school makes them shutter.
I’m with you on this, but some aren’t there. Stanford and Cal for instance think they are above the B12, or otherwise they would stay closer to home. Ironically they both said that USC and UCLA didn’t care about their student athletes because of the travel, yet here they are wanting in the ACC.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
I think my point is that athletics is such a small and generally disconnected sliver of academia that even snobby presidents' needles aren't moved by the thought of associating with XYZ university. Because it's really not that much of an association. Even assuming Sands cares, he doesn't need athletic conference association to hobnob with Stanford or Cal presidents. There are other ways. And being in the same athletic conference as Stanford and Cal isn't going to suddenly change his cocktail party schedule or behavior in some significant way. And it's not like the Stanford president is suddenly going to say "ooh, VT is our peer now...I need to hang with Tim Sands!" (especially if the snobbery many buy into is real)
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
time and again we have seen expansions that appear to have been influenced by academic standing. The Stanford case would seem to deviate wildly from the typical. I heard a couple of random podcast commentators offer this reason: The B1G demands that conference members join the academic consortium (Big Ten Academic Assn. formerly CIC). Stanford refused to give up their current affiliation with a consortium that includes The Ivies, Johns Hopkins, etc. (just from memory) maybe MIT. Cal, despite their high stature is a mess when it comes to athletics. Chancellor Carol Christ is on record as being uncomfortable with the enormous amounts cash expended on sports and the competitive money chase involved. The weakness of their AD may be intentional.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
but there's no reason they'd have to forego existing relationships. That makes no sense, all due respect to "random podcast commentators."
The B1G didn't want Stanford because Stanford's not as good for B1G athletics (ahem, football and money) as USC and UCLA.
I'm curious to see the list of these "time and time again" influences of academic standing in expansion.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
But the networks didnt.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
H
HOO86
2y
Many from the Big Ten crowd were reporting that. The Big obviously went with Fox's wishes because Fox was going to pay for it. It makes sense because Fox and ESPN both like rivalries because they tend to produce the most excitement and ratings. USC and UCLA are the rivals, not USC and Stanford. Stanford's rival is Cal. So the ACC would be getting the Stanford/Cal rivalry. USC is a rival with UCLA, but I always view USC as the Rival of Notre Dame. USC is the football school. UCLA is the basketball school.
** Edited by HOO86 at 8/27/2023, 5:58:59 PM
(In response to this post by HokiePail)
2y
formal list of academic moves. The things that come to mind are: The four last additions to The SEC have been AAU members. Three of them also football powers, but Missouri, kinda' weak, might have been less attractive than other choices they could have made; VT, or WVa. They actually wanted an Eastern team, as Missouri was placed in the SEC Eastern Division.
The impending "death match" between the P2 predators will make all of their previous biases less enforceable. The B1G would definitely add FSU or Clemson given the opportunity. But if The SEC beat them to the punch for UNC or UVa, I think The B1G would pass on VT and NCSt. Those latter two don't have the economic chops to make the cut. Not a fact, just my view.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
S
Stech
2y
the yes votes to no votes. If this was about adding football schools that would help our conference, we would have invited WVU and Cincinnati before they renewed or signed their agreement with the B12. However, we could not get the votes, but nominate Stanford and Cal with a recent ho hum football history and right away we have 11. Also, you aren’t the only person with connections to faculty and University Presidents, so I get my opinion first hand too. I guess we talk to different people and neither of us is about to change our mind. That said, I don’t share the opinion of those that think academics and athletic conferences are closely linked, but I do believe that many Presidents and Chancellor’s don’t agree with us. Especially in the ACC and B1G.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
2y
Doesn't actually create any meaningful academic link
** Edited by Pylons at 8/26/2023, 8:49:30 PM
(In response to this post by Pylons)
M
Marooned
2y
(In response to this post by Pylons)
H
HOO86
2y
It took a hit during COVID, but was a benefit.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
2y
(In response to this post by Marooned)
H
hokieZ71
2y
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...just look at the UMass vs NM State game. Yeah, that's the support the three show their teams too.
(In response to this post by Skipper64)
S
Stech
2y
it a net gain? If so, taking those two things into account, how much? I’m not looking for gross gain, you can’t spend gross gain, you can only spend net gain.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
2y
all of the other ACC teams can flight out there once every 2 years and play them both in 3 days. IMO the bigger concern is whether or not returns diminish as the 3 new additions get closer to receiving full shares.
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Marooned
2y
1. The three schools are near major airports in major cities with lots of hotels, travel destinations. Should have convenient flights and be attractive for recruits that want to experience these things and gain exposure.
2. As has been said many times, ESPN wants to make this work to help with programming late into the day. When it comes time for full shares to be given, this should help the ACC in the look in and recompete for the conference’s contract.
3. I’m not terribly worried about Stan or SMU adjusting to the ACC. These schools have the money and their fundraising should pick up, if brought into the ACC. Cal is a different story.
4. Nothing stays static for long. The ACC will need to round out a western pod sooner rather than later. How you do that in BB with ND in the mix I don’t know.
(In response to this post by BROman Hokie)
2y
they might as well just do it. I don't care what FSU says, the ACC schools are almost certainly locked in the ACC by the GoR until the 2030s. And when the GoR nears its expiration, the ACC will probably be pulled apart like the Pac-12 was. So in the mean time, you might as well make a few million more per year while you are in the ACC. I think ultimately the ACC schools opposing the move (except maybe for FSU, because their tactic seems to just be threats and extortion at this point) will get on board and vote to add these schools. Because at the end of the day, the ACC has no better options.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 8/26/2023, 3:27:45 PM
(In response to this post by Skipper64)
2y
Who knows what the world will look like then and how the acc teams perform the next 10 years. Gor will expire but the exit fee will not and 12+ schools likely don't have much better options
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
2y
Nothing is etched in stone. The Acc maybe on higher ground by then. It's a long ways off. Still don't see the Acc imploding. There are a lot of good athletic departments in the Acc, even losing a few schools would not destroy the conference.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
S
Stech
2y
Football scheduling since expansion has been terrible for the conference. Please tell me how playing those teams less and playing these 3 schools without *recent football passion is making the Conference better? (*B1G doesn’t want Stanford and Cal, and the B12 doesn’t want SMU)
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Our scheduling sucks because playing football games against Wake, Duke, Syracuse, BC, UVA, GT and Pitt SUCKS. (Yes, Pitt. The only game Pitt plays that’s interesting is the Backyard Brawl)
Who cares if SMU and Cal suck. We are used to that; see the above list. Stanford used to be good 10 years ago, so what?! So did VT. Maybe we can play them and talk about that Orange Bowl with Tyrod and Luck.
Look, If our conference sucks, which it most certainly does, we might as well get some more money out of it. Let’s pump $3-$5M per year into the football program and pray Pry is the guy.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
and less games against Clemson, FSU and ND? That’s the numbers that could change my mind.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
1) I do think most ACC teams will generate substantial (at least a million) in additional revenue AFTER any increased travel expenses.
2). Look around. Look at the B1G. Look at the B12. And look at the SEC even from a VT perspective. If VT goes to any of those conferences, our travel budget is drastically increased. We would be on the far edge of any of those conferences. We are smack dab in the middle of the ACC. Adding a trip to San Francisco or Dallas for most sports would pale in comparison. We can take a bus ride too, maybe 5 conference opponents in the ACC. LOL. We have been working on a cheapo travel budget so long we probably need a little boost in expenses to prep us for the new landscape.
And don’t say VT would earn substantially more money in those leagues. We could out earn Oregon and Washington for the next several Years when they are in the B1G. There are no more full share entries into the P2. The Big XII pays out less than the ACC.
Look, Our best choice financially is adding these three, boosting our payout a few million bucks and hoping the landscape drastically changes for the better in the next 6-8 years.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/26/2023, 7:59:36 PM
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 8/26/2023, 8:01:36 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
(In response to this post by Stech)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...ND can not count a game against any of those three as one of their five games against ACC teams. Those games are above and beyond the five they currently play (against the current ACC teams).
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by xx97)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
X
xx97
2y
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Marooned
2y
The B12 is Texas based, already has the AZ schools for a late day time slot, and has a split TV package. The ACC has nothing west of the Mississippi River and is beholden to ESPN. The ACC also has FSU openly grumbling about the conference’s payouts and the B12 is a new group trying to find their footing together. Their paradigms couldn’t be farther apart. It’s not surprising that the ACC is looking at schools the the B12 didn’t pick up.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
2y
SMU has never been considered by the Big 12 and never will.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
2y
...has WVU as the most valuable football brand in the B12 conference (lol). And that’s below VT and the obvious Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, Miami.
The Big12’s #1 most valuable football brand is 6th in the ACC.
And for the record, Cal and Stanford are more valuable in football than UCF, Houston, Kansas State, Baylor, Kansas, Cincinnati, Arizona, Colorado…
Why are there so many B12 posters on a Virginia Tech message board all of a sudden? Weird huh.
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
would be farther down imo.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
X
xx97
2y
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2y
You still spinning that yarn after I showed the goofy u $#’s?!🤔🤫😉🤣😎
(In response to this post by xx97)
2y
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
I love teasing a KState alum friend with this
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Just not a fan of some of the perceived “B12 is better than the ACC” vibes. It’s not.
But I do appreciate all the non-VT folks (B12, ND, ARK, UNC, UVA, etc) on this board. It really is refreshing to see all of the differing viewpoints. Yours included.
VT BABY!!!
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by xx97)
S
Stech
2y
Who else did that?
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
a few years ago the Acc was 4-0 against them in the regular season.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2y
…is too elite for Stanford and Cal.
The current B12 is inferior to the ACC in football tradition, marketing, and viewership (also National titles and basketball)…it’s not remotely close.
(In response to this post by Stech)
X
xx97
2y
B12 is superior.....as evidenced by the ulmighty dollar. The real measure!
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2y
Also, last B12 Natty? Current teams, not the ones that divorced you.
(In response to this post by xx97)
2y
in the last 10 years.
(In response to this post by xx97)
X
xx97
2y
(In response to this post by HokiePail)
2y
You joined this board all of 3 weeks ago and have been very vocal and opinionated since. What school do you rep?
(In response to this post by xx97)
D
daveinop
2y
fwiw, we'd also play BC, Louisville, and Syracuse less
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
PS I’m probably in the minority, but I would rather play Louisville, Syracuse and BC, than Cal, SMU and Stanford. At least there have been some games over the years with Syracuse and BC in football, and Louisville in basketball.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
When were the two contracts signed?
(In response to this post by Stech)
D
daveinop
2y
do you think the ACC simply has an internal distribution issue?
Because it's one or the other. If the former, we're getting screwed by the network. If the latter, we're getting screwed by having a GOR in a conference with bad bylaws all the schools voted for.
From various corners of the board, I've heard both. "Our ESPN contract is too long!" Well, it isn't if we're getting market value. Look at UO and UW. Fox said they may be national programs, but they're only worth about $30M/yr. So they are getting half shares when they go to the B1G. And do they have to pay to buy in to their network too? Clemson and FSU are the only football names in the ACC worth SEC/B1G money. The rest of the Mag 7 are UO/UW level at best..."half share schools".
Then there is the complaint about the GOR. But without it, there is no ACCN. Remember when we HAD to have a network. Well, we have one and it's exceeding all financial projections. No one is saying dump the ACCN.
IMO, the ACC needs to make what it can right now and the "Mag" schools need to have a great resume' come 2030+. If there are a half dozen top 20-ish ACC football powers, ESPN et al might be interested in elevating the payout rather than lose exclusivity in the mid-Atlantic.
Otherwise, the conference is toast anyway and we might as well have a few dozen million more in infrastructure come 2036.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
until 2036. Now when the ACC media contract is renegotiated in 2036, that's when lower ratings will hurt. But half the current conference members will probably be gone by then.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
Well, it would have been less if 2 of those 4 weren't our dedicated matchups :(.
But in spirit, I would be just as excited to play California or Stanford as about any school in the ACC except for Miami, Clemson, UNC, FSU, and UVA. So while it would impact the frequency of those games, it does also decrease the frequency of less desirable matchups.
(In response to this post by Stech)