Some banter about WSU and Oregon State we already know but worth posting
93 Replies
1y
ACC adds Wash St. and Oregon St and purchases the PAC-10 brand and media rights.
That gives Stanford, Cal, and SMU regional partners for the new PAC-10.
Notre Dame has to play 2 of the 5 every year as part of their current ACC (now ACC-PAC) agreement.
That gives you 5.5 West Coast schools playing a PAC schedule, in partnership with the ACC.
Poach another 4-5 West Coast schools from the B12 or Mountain West to get to 10.
ACC - PAC10 Network. Your all-coast conference, with all time zones covered.
The PAC-10 brand deserves to be resuscitated.
VT BABY!!!
(In response to this post by Maroon Unit)
T
Truthahn
1y
Effectively trade those two for Wake, to make an 18-team conference.
The PAC-2 has about $200M in settlement money from the departing PAC schools. So, give half of that to the ACC to merge and pay off Wake.
ACC becomes the PACC.
Give the PAC-2 a Stanford/Cal level of reduced share, same time frame.
The ACC gets two new states for the (P)ACCN.
Stanford and Cal get some closer partners.
SMU should not have to pick up more west coast games, unless they want to, IMO.
Do not start playing the PAC-2 until 2026. They are in the MWC until then.
I'd love to see a consultants take on that, but I doubt the ACC would do it.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
1y
member of the very conference that VT has always wanted to be in. Now, today, you guys would dump them in a heartbeat.
So much for the regionality, academic, and tradition arguments. Which is it guys?
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
1y
If we lose FSU, we should also lose Wake, IMO. They must be the least attractive TV program in the P4, and could easily be replaced by a half dozen more attractive programs.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
... academic, and tradition".
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
about the top ACC football schools?
Haha, does anyone care about Wake Forest?
(In response to this post by Atlee Hokie)
1y
regional, traditional and decent academic schools - things change.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
path for non conference games in the future. Playing in state teams should be a requirement for even the top programs.
Do you think Bama will ever play Troy, UAB, or Jacksonville State on the road? I should be a requirement that a 2-1 series should be scheduled.
Pick a blue blood. Do they have the guts to play an in State G5 on the road? As a casual fan, it's one of the things that draws me to the ACC. Miami played a road game in Toledo, UNC recently played at App. State, NCSU played at East Carolina, VT, you guys already know.
The top blue bloods get a pass for some reason. That needs to change.
(In response to this post by RTFC)
1y
but we shouldn't be playing Liberty or ODU unless it is for money games.
Everything to lose and nothing to gain.
** Edited by RTFC at 8/15/2024, 10:20:40 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
with the changes that have occurred and will continue to occur every game is a money game now and every scheduling decision is a risk/reward analysis. In the ACC and the B12, both likely 1 bid leagues more often than not, any losses are damaging to playoff hopes. As far as dropping conference members the landscape will change but, at present I view dropping schools just like dropping sports, I view it as a bad look for conferences and schools.
(In response to this post by RTFC)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, not guaranteed and subject to change when rules and payouts get adjusted down the line in the next 2 or 4 years.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
a close one in the conference championship game could also get you an at large.
No guarantee for any non conference champion that is not in the P2, but the OOC strength of schedule is now much more important to the ACC, B12, and the G5, than it ever has been.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
for ACC or Big 12 teams. If the OOC schedule is loaded and they win maybe but, for most normal schedules very unlikely.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
polls will no doubt be biased, but a Clemson beating a Georgia, but loses the conference championship to a one loss VT, gets in. (insert any school in the ACC or B12).
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
as outside of POSSIBLY Clemson or FSU few, if any, ACC or Big 12 teams have the SOS or the standing to pull that off.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
if they beat them, and get into the B12 championship game (and lose), they should have a high enough ranking to get in as an at large. As I mentioned, the OOC schedules become much more important for the ACC and B12 schools. Cincy got into the playoffs over a 5th ranked one loss ND, ONLY because they won the head to head with ND. Otherwise, they would have been passed over.
You guys have Bama on your OOC schedule, but that is years out. The Maryland and Rutgers games, may have fan appeal, but those are not the tough games you need to schedule. The same can be said for all of the teams in the ACC or B12. We all need to drop the FCS games, schedule as many top Big 10 and SEC teams as possible, and if we can't schedule them, play our top teams against each other.
FSU beat a 12th ranked LSU last year, I'm not sure what else they could have done, but if they had lost to Louisville in the ACC championship game, I have them in a 12 team playoff. The ACC gets 2 teams in the playoffs in that scenario.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
but, it determines where WVU lands in rankings considering a PSU upset and the remaining body of their work. A TCU like performance with a number of narrow regular season wins followed by a championship game loss might not have gotten TCU in or be enough to push WVU over the top. A lot of moving parts and NOBODY outside the P2 should assume anything until we see how things will work. If nothing else was learned from last year that would seem to be a relevant takeaway.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
dropping a conference member outright is a bad look - and I'm not suggesting that as a sole solution - but if the next round of realignment involves a multitude of teams, say ~ 4-6 leave the ACC for the P2. The rest should take that opportunity to realign their own conference.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
and my only qualification would be that in terms of realignment, expectations and criteria need to be carefully considered and implemented. Some of the criticisms, not all, leveled at some schools are IMO, unrealistic at best and flat out wrong at worst.
(In response to this post by RTFC)
1y
(In response to this post by RTFC)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
teams year in and year out is the reality. That is how you get invited to the P2.
(In response to this post by RTFC)
1y
We should play out of state private - but only the ones you think are right...gotcha
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VPI 1924
1y
Wake Forest in any sport. You are hearing noise.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
Wake Forest and every other piddly little private, no fan-having, tiny school like it in the ACC are an anchor around the neck of every serious football program in the conference, and they are treated by the conference administration like they actually bring something to the table. They are LESS than worthless. They are an active drain. Nobody cares about or watches them, in person or on TV. They drag down strength of schedule. And, yet, we're supposed to all act like these are "power" football programs. It's a crock of you-know-what. It's why ACC teams will no longer play in a prime time ABC linear broadcast window, a window that is now EXCLUSIVELY reserved for ESPN's primary product, the SEC. ESPN, who is supposed to be the ACC's "great media partner." GTFOH.
I'm not sure there's an actual mechanism to kick Wake Forest out, but if the ACC was actually run by serious people that wanted the conference to survive as anything more than a hollowed out brand to make people nostalgic for mid-late 20th century college basketball, there would ABSOLUTELY be a movement to kick them and all the rest of the similar negative value dead weight junk heap out. But, no, instead, they're running the Jim Phillips show, and dictating to FSU, Clemson, and anyone else who wants to compete with the SEC and B1G how things are going to be done. Wake Forest is the primary reason why we have three more worthless, dead weight football programs to drag down the ACC now.
Frankly, Wake Forest, Boston College, and several other ACC members should be FCS for football.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
ACC. Wake is a founding member, and now everyone is miffed that they don't make as much as Ohio State?
If I was a Wake fan, I'd say if you don't like it, leave. It seems though the ACC has a Berlin Wall.
Is it Wakes fault you are not in the P2? Is it BC's fault? While were at it, go down the list with Cuse, Duke, and Miami. Add in SMU and Stanford, and maybe it's not them that are in the wrong conference, maybe it's VT.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by RTFC)
1y
when they aren't competitive in- or out-of-conference and nobody watches them play on TV. Wake Forest and Boston College are not brands that people will support whether they're winning or not. Approximately 1000 people are in the stands for any given BC game, and less people watch them on TV. Wake Forest is the 2nd smallest school in the entire FBS and plays in what is basically a high school stadium. There are some FCS and plenty of G5 programs that are more competitive and have higher brand valuations than Wake Forest and Boston College. That's the problem; that's why they are "negative value."
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
GREAT! More power to them. I'm sure there are more then 3-4 schools that would be happy to leave the ACC tomorrow, and, despite what you see on Twitter or hear from idiots like Paul Finebaum, there are other conferences that would be happy to have them and welcome them with open arms. The problem is the negative value schools are holding the schools that actually create all the value hostage, because they want to keep cashing the media rights checks that are bankrolled entirely by the football schools.
You're also being completely disingenuous in ignoring that, in 2003, when VT was INVITED to the ACC, the ACC was the wealthiest conference and had the highest media rights value in the country. It's certainly not VT's fault that the conference has become what it's become. VT is basically the only former-Big East addition that has actually pulled its weight for the ACC - you certainly can't say the same thing about Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, or Pitt. Yes, Beamer slipped at the end, and VT made a bad coaching hire that basically wasted six years, but, along with FSU, who has always been the football draw even when they're bad, VT carried the ACC flag nationally for most of the 2000s. And, even when VT football is down, it still has more panache and brand power than most of the other football programs in the ACC. If you think Wake Forest, Duke, UVA, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, SMU, Syracuse, Cal, etc. etc. etc. have ANYTHING resembling panache, you don't know what panache means. Anyone can say what they want to about VT, but you're completely full of it if you try to make the argument that VT hasn't done its part or has otherwise devalued the ACC brand.
Here's another little secret for you, while we're at it - Wake Forest contributed basically nothing towards the ACC's valuation way back when, either. They were just.....there, hanging around. And, just because Wake Forest was part of a little North Carolina basketball clique in the 1950's that wanted to stage their own tournament doesn't mean they are owed anything by anybody now, today. By any metric you want to bring to the table, Wake Forest brings absolutely nothing to the table, at all. If they want to play D1 basketball, great, they can knock themselves out. But the only reason they're not an FCS football program today, like they should be, is solely owing to geography and state politics in the 1950's.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 8/14/2024, 5:12:57 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the schools that make up the ACC. Money or not, the ACC is a pretty good conference. If VT has a better place to land, they will find their way there, until then, it's the conference you have.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
T
Truthahn
1y
But the MAG7, had it happened, would have dumped six, or maybe only three, depending upon how the ACC could be dissolved. Most people had Wake and BC in the dump list at that time.
Personally, I think, if we lose FSU and Clemson, our best response would be to kick Wake out, too, and backfill to 16 or 18 with the best we can get.
** Edited by Truthahn at 8/16/2024, 4:29:46 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
It doesn't matter whether you think the ACC "is a pretty good conference" or not - the perception is already out there that the conference is trash, the ACC commissioner agreed to take less CFP revenue notwithstanding who actually makes the field/wins, and the ACC's primary business partner, ESPN, markets and treats the conference like an inferior red-headed stepchild to the SEC.
And, again, for the 10 millionth time, FSU, Clemson, VT, and the rest of the football-first schools are NOT THE PROBLEM. The non-serious schools ARE THE PROBLEM, and the non-serious, small, private, non-competitive schools are being allowed to dictate conference policy and take an equal share of the revenue while also bringing nothing, most of them even worse-than-nothing to the table. And then they also have the audacity to hold the schools that create the value hostage so they can keep sucking at the teat. Why should the schools that actually create all the value just sit back and go along with that status quo? Please, tell me that, since you seem to have all the answers.
I think your point of view on all of this is tainted, because, if memory serves, you pull for what is, if not dead last, one of the lowest-value schools in the Big 12, Iowa State. But, just because you empathize with soon-to-be-left-behind institutions like Wake Forest and Boston College doesn't mean FSU and Clemson are wrong in what they're doing. Whether you personally like it or not, the writing is already on the wall for the ACC, whether it happens tomorrow or in 12 years. When the dominoes begin to fall, VT will have options, and will either cast its lot with the losers and become a relegated football program in a private school-dominated basketball conference, or it won't.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
schools are not the problem. Basketball centric athletic departments are not the problem. FSU is not the problem.
I misspoke. The ACC isn't a "pretty good" conference, it is a "premier" conference.
I have mostly agreed with your posts, but I have to say, this idea that this madness can be blamed on the privates in the ACC is beyond my comprehension. Divided you fall. The hateful 8 united, and picked up the pieces. Today, they are playing football and basketball at the highest levels. Not having a P2 media contract is no excuse for not exceling and being competitive. Is it really more difficult for Iowa State to compete against Texas than it was in the past?
I use ISU as an example, because except for the run VT made in football starting with Vick, the fan base, the sell out crowds, and other factors puts ISU right along side VT in my book. They are not my school, but they most definitely are one of the many reasons the B12 got their media deal. It's a tough place to pick up a win.
My school has been abysmal in football. The last time they were relevant was in the 2008 Orange Bowl. They do OK in basketball from time to time, and I'll be darned, they are one of 6 teams in the B12 picked to win the conference this year. They certainly are not hanging their heads because Texas makes more money than them. They want to play ball.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
if, on any given year, they win the Big 12, then, assuming the CFP format doesn't change to all at-large seeding, have to play a SEC or B1G program in the CFP that, before you even start to tally any other revenue source up else up, makes literally twice as much money from TV revenue? You know, money? That thing you pay for recruiting with, and pay coaches, staff, and, most importantly, players with? That thing you use to build and maintain facilities? And, since we mentioned players, how do you think that Kansas team is going to do when they have to play a top-line SEC/B1G program that has a roster full of not only the very best high school recruits, which they've always had, but now also 4-5 years worth of cherry-picked players developed by Big 12, ACC, and other P2 schools, then poached from their rosters?
By acting like money doesn't matter, and you just want to "play ball," you're completely ignoring the new reality that has been created. You can frame it however you want, but, practically speaking, Big 12 and ACC programs are no longer even playing in the same division as B1G and SEC programs. Disney and FOX, in doing what they have done, and promoting things the way they have, have forced that distinction. So, no, the ACC is not a "premier" conference. It's a conference full of dead weight that Disney decided has approximately half the worth of the SEC. At least they thought that before the ACC added three more dead weight, losing football programs that nobody cares about; that bonehead move likely de-valued the conference significantly.
It would be one thing if the ACC split its media rights money commensurate with the media rights value each institution actually brings to the table, but it doesn't. FSU gets the same share as Wake Forest, all while having to sit back and watch Vanderbilt get double that. And you can sit back like a smart aleck and say, "oh, but FSU and everyone else AGREED to that," which is exactly how a 5 year old would consider the situation. That was then, this is now. What was a tenable position to take at the time has now been made completely untenable. Even if the ACC is successful in dragging the whole ordeal out another 12 years, nothing will change that, every single day, from now until the matter is resolved, the two top TV draws in the ACC are very publicly suing the conference to leave, which they will do the exact second they get the chance, which will, in turn, cause a domino effect of other programs leaving a sinking ship. And, in the interim, FSU and Clemson are not going to agree to anything that will help the ACC's position moving forward. You think that's going help or hurt things when it comes time to negotiate the next media rights contract?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
in football. last I checked, they never have. I do expect them to compete in the Football playoffs form time to time, or at least compete for a playoff spot.
KU did not get invited to the Big 10 as many rumors suggested. They were vetted by them, but so was GT.
They are playing their football games at Arrowhead this year, because they are essentially building a new football stadium. Money will not be the reason that our football coach will leave, but there are certainly other institutions he may consider. He has family in Wisconsin for example.
My point is, our fanbase went through the excruciating process of where our athletics would end up. With no invite form the ACC or PAC, and the P2 passing on them, the unknown for the fans was filled with dread and speculation. Kinda what you and your fanbase is going through right now. Yet, they are moving forward with more money now, than they made with Texas in the conference.
Today, our football team is entering into uncharted waters with their new conference. Call it the Allstate conference, as the Big 12 just doesn't fit anymore. I've never witnessed the excitement from K-State and ISU fans like I am seeing this year. We finally got rid of Texas, and there is a slate of really competitive football on the horizon.
Will any of the schools in the B12 get the top 4 and 5 star recruits? Hah, not a chance, but did they ever? The big boys got their money. With the exception of FSU and ND, there are no more blue bloods on the table. Let them have their cake, as it is still my contention that they will choke.
My position is certainly a fans position. I blame no one for my school not being invited to the cool kids party. I'm looking forward to the new reality, and when this shakes out, so will the VT fans.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
H
HouClone
1y
willing to take $5 million less per year. They'll probably come in with a much reduced share for awhile, but eventually the tax man will be calling for full shares for Stanford, Cal, SMU, and them.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
1y
but they are still sitting out there for a reason. Same reason nobody jumped at Stanford, Cal, or SMU.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
1y
adding WSU and OSU would have actually made some tiny little modicum of sense, because their football programs are actually competitive, and some (not a ton, but at least SOME) people do actually come out to watch them in person and on TV.
But, the ACC isn't in the "making sense" business; it's in the "make sure Wake Forest and Boston College can keep cashing the same media rights checks" business. So it added the two most non-competitive and completely worthless football programs from the rotting corpse of the PAC-12 and a G5 school - strength in numbers, I guess.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
A Pac-10 without USC football and UCLA basketball just isn't the same.
That's like comparing the Big East Basketball brand to the current BE. Still a decent basketball conference. But nothing like the Big East Basketball of the 1980s and 1990s.
I empathize with your position because I loved the Pac-10. But I'm afraid it's gone forever unless USC has regrets and somehow comes back.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
circling the drain for a while now and they made it official when they hired Donna Shalala's little sister Carol Folt. The fact Folt was given a leadership position in the AAU undermines any remaining credibility that organization may have tried to claim as well. I doubt bringing USC back does anything aside from injecting a bit of nostalgia for some.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by HokieNoVA)
1y
We would be Big 10 Lite.
(In response to this post by Maroon Unit)
H
HOO86
1y
ESPN is effectively shut out of those 2 states now completely. Fox is in them both with the B1G. If ESPN wants access back they need to fund the ACC or Big12 to take them, but the Big12 is half funded by Fox, who doesn't need anything else in those states. So ESPN should fund the ACC to take them.
Would those 2 take reduced share like Stanford and Cal are doing? It is probably more than the Mountain West, so maybe. The ACC wouldn't be able to fairly give them more than Stanford and Cal.
Jim Phillips spoke with Oregon State during the PAC12 situation about joining, and the OSU President was not in favor of the travel required at the time. Is he now? We'll see. They can watch how Stanford and Cal do now before deciding.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
1y
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
T
tcc_dc
1y
Current ACC states plus Washington and Oregon
U.S. state population: estimate population: census
1. California (2023 est.) 38,965,193 (2020) 39,538,223
2. Texas (2023 est.) 30,503,301 (2020) 29,145,505
3. Florida (2023 est.) 22,610,726 (2020) 21,538,187
4. New York (2023 est.) 19,571,216 (2020) 20,201,249
5. Pennsylvania (2023 est.) 12,961,683 (2020) 13,002,700
8. Georgia (2023 est.) 11,029,227 (2020) 10,711,908
9. North Carolina (2023 est.) 10,835,491 (2020) 10,439,388
12. Virginia (2023 est.) 8,715,698 (2020) 8,631,393
13. Washington (2023 est.) 7,812,880 (2020) 7,705,281
16. Massachusetts (2023 est.) 7,001,399 (2020) 7,029,917
17. Indiana (2023 est.) 6,862,199 (2020) 6,785,528 (ND)
23. South Carolina (2023 est.) 5,373,555 (2020) 5,118,425
26. Kentucky (2023 est.) 4,526,154 (2020) 4,505,836
27. Oregon (2023 est.) 4,233,358 (2020) 4,237,256
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
Question for the board: Are there G5 options for the ACC or B12 that are
better expansion candidates than Wazzu and Oregon State, OR are WSU and OSU just the best unfortunate teams that are just underneath the line between tier 2 and tier 3? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Just like Clemson and FSU are underneath the line between tier 1 and tier 2, at least for now.
Also, if you think there are better G5 options for tier 2 (ACC and/or BigXII), name them and offer a brief reason.
Thanks.
(In response to this post by Maroon Unit)
O
obguthr
1y
A lot of people don't realize how small and struggling the Coogs are. The Pac-12 war chest should help, but they need to use their share of it wisely.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VTCALS72
1y
IMHO that is too many. But I do believe there are several (Calford) teams who are in temporarily. So, unless the ACC loses more than 6 teams, no additions are needed as I believe that 12 will be the max that the ACC and Big 12 end up with.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
Big 12 teams before they go after Washington State and Oregon State. I don't know that they would be successful, but I think they would make the effort.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
It might be more likely that the Big 12 pulls ACC teams away. I think it's very likely we end up with a tug of war, who wins depends on, as you pointed out, which conference is able to bring in the most media money. Should be interesting when the time comes.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
V
VTCALS72
1y
To me it would take, not just some but a lot more additional media money for me to think VT would be better off in the big 12 than the ACC. Same thing for say Kansas, Kansas ST, ISU or OK St. Way more regional interest in being in a league in your region.
Outside of WVU, who in the Big 12 could move the excitement needle better than NCSU, GT, Cuse, BC, Pitt etc? Really no one. Now before Big 12 Guy comes back all indignant about this take, my take is exactly the same for KS, KS St, Ok St, and Iowa St. Who in the ACC moves the needle for them?
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, and Louisville. Those schools added to West Virginia would provide a better regional schedule than what the remaining ACC would. That assumes that schools like Clemson, Florida State, Miami and UNC have already left the ACC.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 8/13/2024, 6:01:56 PM
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 8/13/2024, 6:03:42 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
suddenly we have MD in the big, which we have been handling while in the ACC. And we have Tenn just a couple of hours to our southeast. Then you complete the single turkey at a turkey shoot by the SEC adding UNC and UVA. VT ringed in by P2 schools closer to the majority of the population in VA than we are. Is there anything your scenario does that would help us fight that? anything that would increase total revenues enough to offset extra travel cost? My thought is no. If that happens we are not going to be able to remain competitive with the P2 period so then the question becomes income and expenses for running the entire athletic program. IMHO, those 4 schools would be better off with Miami, Cuse, BC, Duke, Wake, Lville and Pitt than schools from the lower midwest and further away, schools that no one knows or cares about.
And if those 11 teams did get stabilized, we could be a better cost and returns option for WVU and or UCF. It is my understanding WVU is paying a high percent of their revenue for travel.
Right now, the only plus the Big 12 could offer would be WVU with a maybe to UCF or Cincy.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
Miami, which was suggested had already left for a P2 conference, and Louisville which was included as one of those four schools. So that leaves Syracuse, BC, Wake, Duke, and Pitt. That's not a very attractive group for me. I would prefer to go with the others in that group of four and head to the Big 12 at that point.
Don't forget the whole point of this scenario is that the ACC and Big 12 would be in a tug of war, and who would be able to lure schools away from the other side. I could also see a strong scenario where the ACC pulled schools from the Big 12 into the ACC. Honestly though, I don't have a lot of faith in ACC leadership taking the initiative to do that.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 8/13/2024, 8:25:59 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
And that the core to rebuild from is Vt, NCSU, GT, Miami, Louisville, Pitt to go along with Cuse, BC, Duke, and Wake. I do not believe either the B12 nor the ACC need more than 12 teams.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
not invited to the SEC, they can join Louisville, Pitt, and NCSU. It all depends on who gets the invites to the Big 10 and SEC. If UNV, Virginia, FSU, and Clemson are gone, That leaves Miami and VT. The SEC has 4 spots, the Big 10 has 2. I don't think any conference goes beyond 20 teams at this juncture, although the B12 could if the networks paid for it. I'm not convinced that the SEC wants to expand to 20, but NC and Virginia are pretty good markets, and if the Big goes for UNC and Virginia, things could get interesting indeed.
I know how you feel about the B12/ACC history and geography, and I will agree that none of this makes sense, but the schools WILL go for the money and playoff access if the ACC does not get the contract (money)
As has been discussed before, I do not think the ACC folds if they lose 2, or 3. The idea that the ACC will be able to get existing B12 teams in that scenario, probably needs to be pulled back into the truck. That ACC will not get more money and playoff money than the B12 if they lose 2 or 3 top programs.
Remember, all of this will be based on what the P2 does, not the B12, or the ACC.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
at least the ones that can. Whether it's the Big 10, SEC, B12, or the ACC.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
V
VTCALS72
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
about WVU being kicked out of the B12. The interview is all about money, brands, and different criteria used to value a schools athletic department. It is not a fan's perspective, and is a pretty interesting breakdown of the finances. His charts and reasoning kicks WVU, Cincy, UCF, and Houston out of the B12.
The travel is a significant factor unless you have Texas type of money, especially with the non revenue sports.
The central question is that the top 15 or so football schools generate 50% of the viewership, and the rest of us want to be in that club. Only FSU out of the ACC is in that group, and of course no one from the B12 comes even close.
These nation wide conferences may work for football, and basketball, but they do not work for the non revs. he talks about a different classification for the non revs, either as a club sport, or a different regional makeup. otherwise, the institutions that want to be in the top 15, even the ones in the P2 that are not included, will have to make some tough decisions for their non revs.
With pay for play on the table, a schools like VT or a K-State will have to find an additional $20M for their budget just to maintain where they are, but if they want to be in the "club" of national brands moving forward, they will have to find enough money to keep up with the Ohio States, and Texas's.
Except for FSU and ND, I don't see any school that can come up with that kind of money, including the Purdue's and Mississippi States, let alone any of us not in the P2.
VT's athletic budget is just over $100M, K- states budget is just under $120M. Another $30M a year from being invited to the SEC isn't enough money to make them competitive with the top 15 programs. Oregon's Phil Night would have to leave a $1.2B endowment to fund them they way he has after he dies.
The business model of college athletics has been turned upside down, and finding the money to be competitive may be too high of a bar for all but a few. Regionality for football and basketball has nothing to do with the business, the travel expenses being too high is because of the non revs. I'm not convinced even the P2 will be sustainable as a business model unless you were already a brand and making the big bucks.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
1y
And regionalism has a lot to do with, and is the main thing needed to bring those travel cost in line.
I thought I heard something on either Kurtz or Toll's podcast a WVU guy said that travel for them consumed a tremendous part of their athletic budget. I really don't think I heard him right because I thought I heard him say it takes 70% of the WVU athletic budget for transportation and away from campus cost. That seems outrageous to me but maybe it is so.
One thing for sure, athletic departments are not run just for football and MBB.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
a gross exaggeration, the travel for that school for the last decade is off the charts.
Unfortunately, we would have to get rid of the conference model for the non revs, or vice versa for football/basketball to break away. It will not happen, any more than we will have an NFL lite breakaway - because the top Universities will not share their revenue with that many schools. So, breaking away the non revs is the answer, maybe basketball as well.
The Big East, and MANY Universities support their non revs without football money, and they can compete on a national level.
Football is just a different monster, as there is just too much money not distributed wide enough for schools to compete at that level.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
1y
Travel partner for SMU.
Power conference size home stadium.
High growth metro area.
Fanbase that wants to be good at football-moreso than any of the usual suspects already mentioned.
Commuter school academics will torpedo the idea, but still, they need to be on the list of candidates for review.
** Edited by PadrosWindup at 8/13/2024, 8:23:22 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
State of Texas. They only have about $120M in research expenditures, compared to VT's $419M, and they do not have a strong FBS or basketball history, but their location just down the street from Baylor in Round Rock is a pretty decent market.
I'm not saying that they are ACC material, as they are not. I'm saying that they have the potential to be as strong, if not stronger than UTSA.
(In response to this post by PadrosWindup)
TSU main campus is in San Marcos, midway between Austin and San Antonio
The Round Rock campus is a satellite.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
Truthahn
1y
Assuming the PAC decides to reform with a bunch of MWC teams, and they are unable to get any AAC teams, Texas State would get them into Texas.
Something like OSU, WSU, SDSU, UNLV, Boise, Utah State, Colo State, Fresno State, Air Force, and Texas State seems like a very good G5 group. They could even play round robin with nine games.
** Edited by Truthahn at 8/13/2024, 11:54:27 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
a "new" mythical conference. Looks good on paper, but in practice? It's more possible with the MW, but the "new" conference would have to have a media deal that pays significantly more than the MW and AAC currently do. The MW needs 2/3's to vote to dissolve the conference, and they currently have 12 teams. They have the same problem any new conference would have in forming. Even if you set aside the GOR, the exit fees are daunting. I just do not see a pathway for any "new" conference forming moving forward.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
V
VTCALS72
1y
And I will "take the L" as Flugar says if it does not come to reality. My reason is simple, way too many eyeballs on the west coast not to have that mid level league there. Only so many west coast teams will run to USCw, UCLA, Ore or Wash and adopt them as "their" team. A whole lot of eyeballs would want "their" team in "their" timezone conference.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
1y
Then if you need more because the whole Mag 7 leave. Pick up Tulane, Rice Washington State and Colorado State. All could win in either Football or Basketball at the power 4 level. Also great market coverage!!! The urban located schools mainly for basketball, and more rural schools for football. That’s where recruits mostly want to go.
** Edited by Stech at 8/14/2024, 5:35:21 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HOO86
1y
I'd also support Washington State if ESPN pays for it to happen. Their academics is not great. It's about where West Virginia is, who I support. So if ESPN is paying for it, take Wazzu.
I'd also consider Temple. Beef up the ACC in the Mid-Atlantic. South Jersey.
** Edited by HOO86 at 8/13/2024, 7:22:32 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
But they have since proven that they are just not a football school.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
Sweet 16.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
Come until after the P2 has taken over basketball as well. The financial advantage will allow schools to buy up coaches and players, even from traditional Blue blood basketball teams that are not in the P2.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
Sports is where the cut back in rosters are coming IMHO. I don’t see the P2 breaking off 🏀, and Dan Hurley just stayed at UCONN, instead of going to a P2 or the NBA. UCONN’s and Duke’s IMHO will not be outspent for coaches in 🏀. The Alabama’s and Ohio State’s are going to spend the lion share on 🏈, just like they always have. 🏀 at those schools will always be number 2.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
them being pretty competitive. Even made a New Years 6 game. Considering that UNC only has one Orange Bowl in their past, I wouldn't overlook them. I would have liked them in the B12, but the PAC imploded, and changed the course for the B12.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
1y
and if adding. (and some positive input from media rights folks and NCAA allowing another game), go aggressive. Oregon State Wash St (and Utah and Arizona State) and USF Central Fla WVU (and maybe UCONN); pods
West Wash State, oregon State, Stanford Cal Arizona St and Utah (4 AAU's)
South: Miami Central Fla, South Flor FSU GT and Clemson
Mid Atlantic: UNC State Duke Wake UVA and VT
North East SMU, WVU, Pitt Cuse, BC and UCONN
football use the 13th game for semi and then conference championship. play your pod and then 1 from each other POD and 1 from other league game. and 12 AAU schools
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
Uconn for the basketball brand and USF for the Tampa St Pete area.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
Maybe San Diego State and So Cal market,
Also ties in with Stanford and Cal.
USF especially if fsu gone. Huge alumni market. Good academics.
Colorado State and Denver mkt. academics not horrendous.
A Nevada school. North sure why though.
Rice and it’s academics plus huge Houston market. Smu rival Not sure how they support football though
UAB I always wonder
Memphis if fed ex brings coin
SDSU is first though
** Edited by MrFantastic! at 8/13/2024, 3:12:55 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)