2023-2024 ACC Revenue Prediction
Has anyone posted about this?
UVA’s 2023-24 media revenue increased 9.2% to $33.2 million. Remember how some B12 fans boasted about their next media deal, averaging $31.7 million over six years from 2025-2030?
It appears the ACC has already surpassed this in 2023-2024.
The ACC’s average distribution for 2022-2023 was $44.8 million, so it’s reasonable to estimate an average distribution of around $48 million for 2023-2024.
My predictions:
1. The ACC’s average distribution will exceed the B12’s by $13-$15 million for 2023-2024.
2. Some media will spin this as a one-year anomaly, citing the addition of four G5 schools (which is not untrue, but I expect the Big 12 to trail by another $10 million+ in 2024-2025).
3. Instead of recognizing the ACC as the #3 conference, the media will focus on the gap between the P2 and the ACC. This gap is impossible to close, but the media will fixate on it.
Link:
UVa 2023-2024
99 Replies
H
HouClone
1y
media revenue for bowls, college basketball, etc. The past few years, each ACC per school was a little ahead of the Big 12. But how will the ACC distribution look per non-Clemson/Florida State/NC school factoring in unequal revenue?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Single mother living paycheck to paycheck while the billionaires pick all of their pockets.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
But if a single mother keeps bragging about her paycheck, wouldn't you get annoyed?
(In response to this post by RVAHokie05)
M
Marooned
1y
their audition for the SEC? Does that mean they’re not confident in a B1G invite? 🤔
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Two of the following four schools would make sense for the Big Ten in my opinion: FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Georgia Tech. There’s no need to rush. They can wait a few years to see which school is rising.
For the SEC, UNC plus one seems reasonable.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
1y
Less than zero.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
H
HOO86
1y
It's if schools leave it has to be negotiated again.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
The contract is built on 14 I believe. The ACC added the 3 expecting some to leave so they would not have to renegotiate.. Can't fall below 14. We are now at 17. This is about football. It was all brought up when Cal, Stanford, and SMU were added.
I personally don't think the SEC and B1G want many of our members. Perhaps some, but not many. So possibly we will not need to fall below 14.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
V
VTCALS72
1y
There is a good chance that extension came with some flexibility for the ACC when ESPN moves the teams out that they want. I believe the settlement with CU/FSU and the extension are tied together with something for the ACC to set up in the new world order.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
and currently has 18 including ND (ND counts for this).
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
The number is 14 excluding ND. That's the original contract number, and done before ND was added. ESPN allowed the ACC to replace Maryland with Louisville. So if we fall below same will probably occur. But staying 14 and above remove needing this mercy from ESPN. But remember ESPN allowed the Big 12 to drop to 10 with a 12 team contract. So ESPN has a history of leniency. We'll see what happens.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Departing schools must file formal notification well before their actual departure. Many non-Power 2 schools are eager to join the ACC.
I do believe ESPN will have some say on which schools are added. For example, ESPN would likely pay pro rata for B12 schools or even UConn but probably not for Tulane or Rice.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
program, will add nothing and make a struggling conference, even worse.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
H
HouClone
1y
ACC (as well as the Big 12) mindset should be for strength in numbers. Getting another $5 million per year by adding 4 members at the expense of the other is not going to put a dent in the Big 10/SEC gap. A clear cut 3rd conference is still going to get eased out by the Big 10/SEC. But by banding together with as many conferences (Big East, Mountain West, Pac, AAC, etc.), it will make it harder for the Big 10/SEC to do their own thing. These schools have to have some legal teeth to bind them together or you will just see the Big 10/SEC break away and offer money to some conferences to join their basketball or track and field tournaments as examples.
Yormark and Phillips casting in with the Big 10 and SEC is a mistake in my opinion.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
T
Truthahn
1y
Unfortunately, the B10 decided otherwise.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
1y
was announced, you were toast, the conference was done, and the B12 was basically hung out to dry like Oregon State and Washington State.
Is anyone really surprised that the B12 podcasters and cough, posters in social media have a chip on their shoulder? 1 conference down, and 2 to go. :)
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
T
Truthahn
1y
But I wonder if not including the B12 made it easier to convince the ACC and PAC to join in the Alliance? Probably.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
any school would go from the B12 to the ACC. Now, or in the future.
BTW, all three of those schools were recently available when their respective conference either died, or were left for dead. I don't remember any discussion of them joining the ACC then.
Except for the fact that you perceive the ACC to be better, what tangible reason would there be for any B12 school to join the ACC if the ACC loses their top football schools?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
How many times have I said that the ACC will make more money (at least $5M, more likely $10M+) than the Big 12 schools?
I just showed in this thread that the ACC has already reached a $31.7M media revenue figure, which the Big 12 won't hit for a few years.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the ACCN will save the day? Is that where your projections come from?
I don't think the numbers pan out that way my friend. I do indeed think it is wishful thinking.
Maybe a few teams will make that much more than the B12 in whatever form the uneven distributions are figured out, but that also means that same number of schools will be making that much less.
So do new B12 transfers come in at the top, or the bottom of the uneven distributions? THAT is the question you and others should be focused on. The ACC/B12 debate is old, stale, isn't happening, and won't until either ACC schools leave, or 2036 comes around. It's almost not worth discussing anymore.
How the uneven distributions are calculated will decide the fate of the ACC. The media contract drama is over for now.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
T
Truthahn
1y
"So do new B12 transfers come in at the top, or the bottom of the uneven distributions?"
The same will likely be true of FSU or Clemson going to the P2. The P2 will try to get then in near the bottom, and the ACC will keep them at the top (along with the other 2 or 3 who could actually leave). Everyone else will just have learn to live on less. So, no one goes anywhere.
It seems like uneven distros could freeze everyone where they are for a long time.
** Edited by Truthahn at 4/22/2025, 1:15:16 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
OSU and Michigan get a higher % of the media payouts. I'm not sure you can say that about some schools in the B12 or the ACC.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
2
2hhoop3
1y
in a position to lecture anybody on the numbers and contracts given the grasp of the numbers you have historically demonstrated on this message board? The media contract drama is not close to being over as people will be watching the next couple of years pretty closely and comparing to previous claims as well as projecting to 2030 and 2031.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
understand why you, of all people, would see it that way.
The ACC contract is set until 2036 unless I missed something on my soap box, do tell, what drama can possibly come from ESPN and the ACC media contract between now and 2036?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
the actual numbers for BOTH the ACC and the Big 12 and the comparison to original projections AND the difference in the gap to the P2 for starters. That just begins the drama for the Big 12 and what kind of increase, if any, Yormark can deliver the next time around without the extortion and bribe payments for UT, OU and the four corners schools.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
least from my perspective, is irrelevent. We are talking a few million, maybe 5 at most - at least for now. It's not enough a difference to make any measurable difference for conference expansion or contraction between the two conferences, but just to put this to rest once and for all:
You are right, I am wrong. You win, I lose, you are smart, I am dumb. Just so we understand each other, I concede, the ACC is the third best conference, and is superior to the B12.
now that we have that out of the way, what the heck do you guys think will happen with the uneven distribution system, and to you think it will be enough money to satisfy FSU, Clemson, and UNC? if so, where exactly will they get that kind of money, and from which schools?
Poaching B12 schools, and how much B12 schools make is the last thing the ACC should be concerned with.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
anybody that can effect change is concerned or has any burning desire to poach anyone from the Big 12 for football. Also, the previous point, as it has always been, is about being accurate versus spinning your constant Big 12 propaganda. Being #3 has not meant anything for a long while now aside from giving you a dose of reality when you go off on one of your Big 12 tangents.
The question you ask about uneven distribution is not answerable until the ACC or schools decide to publicly share the formulas and metrics. If it works the P2 and Big 12 will do the same in short order. If it fails, the fallout and collateral damage COULD be significant. As far as schools staying, coming or going that is dependent on the gaps that subsequently exist AND what the remaining 3 of the P4 devise in response to the ACC's first pass.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
It's OK to speculate on B12 teams being poached by the ACC in the future, by undetermined media payouts? It's not OK to speculate on future poaching of ACC schools by the B12 because it's propaganda? It's not OK to speculate on an announced uneven distribution system because we don't know the details yet?
Now, I do appreciate the speculation you laid out if the uneven distribution works, or not, as that is pretty commonsensical.
I also find it interesting that you think we will evolve to a P3. Am I reading that correctly?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
is your typical gibberish and evidence of your reading comprehension. I also have no idea where you came up with the P3 assertion and I doubt you do either.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 4/21/2025, 9:08:06 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
is your MO, that is for sure.
They were legitimate questions based on our discussions. I'm just trying to understand the rules you are laying out, but you make accusations, then do not follow up on some pretty simple, pretty straight forward questions.
Let me try again.
Me say B12 poach ACC schools - bad (propaganda)
Me say ACC poach B12 schools - good (acceptable)
You no say how ACC pay for money for FSU
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
read the original post, slowly this time, an maybe you will comprehend what was said and how stupid and irrelevant your follow up questions were.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
will I attempt to comprehend what, if any point you are tryin to make.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
1y
our exchange stand. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
from the old B12 contract don't you?
Random, the media contracts are set.
The only things that matter for college football is the NCAA settlement, and the only thing that matters for the ACC is their uneven distribution system.
Will UVA make the same in 2026 that they will in 2023? Will they make more? And ya, will they make less - and if so, how much less?
You are backwards looking, with a backwards argument.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
UVA’s 2023 revenue exceeded $33 million, which is already higher than the Big 12’s average FUTURE contract payout.
Clearly, the ACC’s FUTURE payout per school is (significantly) larger than the Big 12’s FUTURE payout per school.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
that FSU and Clemson settled, and will get paid more than the underperforming schools - like UVA, and with the new exit penalties set, FSU, Clemson, Miami, and UNC will either make close to P2 money, or they will leave.
I see the projections of the B12 contract vs the ACC contract. Everyone can look it up. For you to conclude that the payouts will be significantly larger than the B12 is wishful thinking, especially since the B12 will get a new contract in 2030, and the ACC won't.
There is no B12 team that will go to the ACC based on the current media contracts, coupled with the ACC already rejecting, or the western schools already rejecting any move to the ACC.
Again, the ACC's problem with FSU and Clemson, and the ensuing uneven distribution will be what determines whether or not the ACC stays together. If the ACC loses their top 4 schools, it's all over but the crying. If the western schools turned down the ACC with FSU, Clemson, Miami, and UNC, you would have to be certifiably insane to think they will want to join the ACC when those schools leave.
In addition, WVU makes the most sense for VT, add in Cincy, and you have a pretty good "pod", but the ACC has rejected those two schools multiple times. Why would they leave the stability of the B12, and go to the instability of the ACC?
You can not project what UVA will make in two years, or what VT will make for that matter. If the "football brands" pick your schools pocket so that they can be competitive, will that be a conference that even VT wants to be in?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
you both will have your first data point to discuss. The point will be incomplete as the ACC numbers will not have Calford or SMU and the Big 12 will not reflect the full effects of the UT/OU departure or the additions. Next year gets a little closer to truing things up but, looming on the horizon will be what uneven revenue distributions will look like. Two years from now, depending upon no further changes will be the first close to clean look for comparison purposes..
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 4/22/2025, 1:38:54 PM
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 4/22/2025, 3:03:32 PM
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
The ACC is going to make more money than the Big 12.
It will make $13–$15M more per school in 2023 and $10M+ per school in 2024.
You just don't want to believe it. That's fine with me, but don't ask the same questions again and again.
Just wait and see—the numbers will come out soon.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
posters on this board that would be willing to back that up? The first I have heard of this is from you, and only you.
So tell me one more time how much more money that the ACC will make than the B12, and why are you talking about 2023? and not 2024 or 2025?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
2023 is already out don't you? The next numbers to be released are 2023/2024 to be released within the next month or so. The calendar is that actual data is released from the tax returns when filed and available. The SEC is generally the front runner in releasing info and USA Today compiles all the conference data with current analysis and prior year comparisons in an article, usually in May of each year, for the previous year ends. I am not sure of the actual fiscal year-ends for all conferences but, I think most are June 30, with the possible exception of the SEC which might be 8/31.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
2
2hhoop3
1y
is 2024/2025? I think most people refer to the end year when referring a period straddling two years.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
The ACC contract ends in 2036/2037. Most people simply say it ends in 2036.
** Edited by RandomAsianGuy at 4/23/2025, 1:35:46 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
1y
The problem is the extreme level of volatility and what a middle of the road ACC team is going to make in 2030, 2031, 2032, etc.
Nobody is arguing with you about how much Big 12 teams made in 2022 or 2023. There's nothing to dunk on here.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Now that I’ve shown the ACC made more money and will make more money in the future, you are saying money is no longer important?
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
One gets payouts from a linear cable network, the other does not. But, yeah, you already knew that. Because everyone already knows that. But, you want to pick and choose what you're arguing about, like a child.
You've not "shown" that ACC will make more money in the future, so I have no idea where you're getting that little factoid from (well, actually, I do, but I will spare everyone the unpleasant imagery of typing it out.)
Honest question - why don't you try actually subscribing to this site, big guy? You sure act like you know everything around here; I bet you'd just love to come over to the subscriber's board and spread your big brain takes there.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
1y
Frankly, I was an idiot for even engaging with your puerile posts again. You're a bad faith poster and you're clearly only here to promote something.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
on the free conference realignment board with out-of-context numbers I found on Google so I can produce "content" elsewhere. So, thanks, but I'm not going anywhere, big dog.
Do me a big favor, don't read or respond to any more of my posts, and I'll return the favor in kind. Thanks.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
RIGHT NOW. The major difference maker as things stand today is the pro rata payouts (~ $10.5m) from the ACCN. Without that, the base media rights contracts are much, much closer in valuation, as are the payouts from the CFP.
Where I diverge from his line of thinking is on his assumption that the ACCN is going to be a gravy train with biscuit wheels that never stops, and that the major football brands leaving the ACC will not affect the conference's media rights valuation.
As the proliferation linear cable continues its post-mortem plunge, the profitability of the ACCN will be majorly affected, as the ACCN depends entirely on linear cable carriage fees for its profitability. And, anyone that thinks the ACC is going to continue to cash the same size checks when FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami, and whoever else leaves is indulging in wishful thinking. I think both of those chickens are going to be arriving home to roost around 2030, if not before.
But, that's the future, and it calls for speculation. He likes to talk a lot about the right now, and the last couple years, and he's not wrong that the ACC gets more money as things stand right now. I think he overlooks that nobody on here is arguing with him that ACC teams get more money than Big 12 teams RIGHT NOW. But, in 2004, ACC teams got significantly more than the Big 10 and SEC teams. Now, they don't. Things change.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
1y
Otherwise, you a correct about the composition clause in the contract.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
But perhaps you are correct. I do know that the 3 new ones, Stanford, Cal, and SMU are not part of the number.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
S
Stech
1y
Take them off the island and let them have 6+ games out West for non-revenue sports , and not have to worry about dropping below 14.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
I don't know if Oregon State would accept. They said no before due to travel.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
He was trying to judge their interest, and the President of Oregon State said No because of the distance and travel. She also said something to the effect of they would have to be paid a lot of additional revenue to consider it. She turned down overtures from the American Athletic Conference too I remember. They wanted to rebuild the PAC12 and keep the brand which is what they are trying to do.
Jim Phillips also reached out to the Arizona schools, and they told him they were going to the Big XII. I'd have to do research to find those articles again. They were back in 2023. I don't remember overtures to Oregon and Washington back at that time, which the ESPN article is suggesting. I don't remember that at all. But I do remember his talking to Oregon State.
** Edited by HOO86 at 4/22/2025, 11:56:59 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
....
I know Big 12 people don't want to think this but I do think that there are some members of the Big 12 who would prefer to be with the schools in the ACC.....you know Stanford and Cal give them some clout academically and athletically in some ways that I think could help them lure may be a western division together.
The other think you could look at is you know this league really talks about academics in a way that some of the other leagues don't...
________
The academics is one thing. But wait until the 2023-2024 revenue numbers come out.
Link:
Brian Murphy
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HouClone
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
1y
will Jim Phillips get out front enough to make it happen. He always seems late to the party and just trying to live in the past to keep ND semi-independent in reality, but Independent in name. He just seems so slow to do anything, mainly because he doesn't like the current environment. He and Whit our AD just seem a few steps behind longing for the past.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
H
HOO86
1y
He didn't do it, and now they are pretty locked up. And with Stanford and Cal here the academics will take precedence even more. I don't know who else I'd want from the Big XII. Arizona and Utah perhaps.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
was floundering after the announcement of OU and Texas, there wasn't one single B12 school that would not have accepted an invite from the ACC. That includes the 3 G schools and BYU that were added later. They were all looking for a life boat, and the security of the ACC would have been very attractive to any of those schools.
The PAC, even with the announcement of USC leaving, could have had their pick of ANY of the B12 schools, including, but not limited to BYU and the G5 schools invited to the B12.
Both the ACC, and the PAC, gave a HARD PASS on adding any of the flyover SEC type schools in the hate full 8. No one wanted BYU either, kinda for the same reasons everybody turns their collective noses up on Liberty today.
Obviously, Oregon and Washington were publicly trying to get a Big 10 invite, as the PAC was floundering trying to get a media contract.
Then, the unthinkable happens, and the B12 gets a solid contract, and Colorado defects. Colorado defected BEFORE the announcement of Oregon and Washington going to the Big 10. Where was the ACC while these events were transpiring? You can't tell me there were not any discussions with the remaining 8 PAC schools - right? I just can not imagine that the 4 corners went to the B12 without at least talking to the ACC.
Then, months and months went by, and you had Calford, OSU, and Washington State on an island.
How many times does WVU have to be turned down by the ACC to finally realize that the ACC doesn't want them? Add in UCF, Houston, Cincy, UCONN, USF, and the entirety of the hatful8.
I think some are barking up the wrong tree even thinking that the ACC would add any of the B12 schools now, or in the future. They already turned all of them down.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
to take their temperature about joining the ACC, but was told the die had already been cast, and both schools were going to the Big 12. That's just something I read somewhere, and I have no idea if that's accurate, but it would make sense if so, since Phillips cut his teeth at Arizona State.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
after Oregon and Washington announced their departure he said paraphrase "We were sitting in the room ready to have our meeting, and Oregon and Washington walked into the room, and said they were going to the Big 10. So I looked around, and realized it was time to call the B12."
I just have to assume that when Colorado made their decision, that The ACC would have been on the phone calling those schools - but if you remember, There were a ton of B12 rumors (podcasters and such) with the four corners, but there weren't many of them joining the ACC. I think it's one of the reasons most, if not all, on this board despise the B12 podcasters.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
S
Stech
1y
more likely they do some type of Big East merger, which just tells you they still don’t understand that ~80% of the money comes from college football. Even though the B12, has some good to great basketball schools, they don’t have the Academic chops of the mostly private Big East schools. That matters to Notre Dame because they can lead them, unlike if they were in the B1G or SEC, they would have no chance of controlling them.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
is just plain silly. It is possible that college basketball is undervalued, but let's be honest. Football has been moving realignment since the beginning of time.
Now, if the B12 is successful, and is able to separate the basketball media deals, then something like that could make sense. For now though, either you have the football value, or you don't.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
least having guest on their shows talking it up. It sounds like another way for Notre Dame to stay Independent if a few leave the ACC to me.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
NIL and free agency transfer rules are currently ruining college football, but they've already killed college basketball, which was already on life support with one-and-dones and the pre-free agency transfer portal.
College basketball has been an absolute joke for at least 10-15 years now. The casual viewer, meaning the vast majority of potential viewers, won't even watch a single game before the NCAA tournament starts.
More people watch Mama's Family reruns at 4:30 AM than non-NCAAT college basketball games.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
where NBA potentials will sign with the good coaches for development, but the top players no doubt are going for the money, and have been for quite some time.
Duke - Kansas got over 3M, and averaged more than 2.5M viewers this year early in the season, and had several games join the 1M club. Now, that is not OSU - Michigan football numbers, but it's comparable to a LOT of top regular season B12 and ACC games.
Like football, I guess it's who is playing during the regular season. Duke - UNC draws good numbers year in and year out. Put both of them in the top 10, and they too will draw 3M++.
We all watch the football numbers, and those types of ratings competes heavily with top regular season football matchups.
Viewers are viewers, and I wouldn't be so fast to discount basketball being under valued.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
R
RJHokie
1y
Football rules the chips….
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
if the ACC loses some schools.
In case you are not aware, the ACC did reach out to Oregon and Washington. The ACC's original targets were UO, UW, Stanford, and Cal. Obviously UO and UW said no because they were waiting on the B10.
Jim Phillips at least pushed hard to add Stanford and Cal.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
reached out to Oregon and Washington, I know for a fact that the ACC did not push hard to get CalFord. To think otherwise is revisionist at best.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Phillips had pitched the idea of safety in numbers to league members who were opposed to the additions. For the three new members, the move brings a measure of stability as college conference realign in major ways without regard for geography.
____
Also LA times said:
Give credit to ACC commissioner Jim Phillips for not following in the footsteps of George Kliavkoff. Phillips knew he was going to make a few schools mad, but he didn’t operate out of fear of losing them. He protected his league’s existence long-term — his No. 1 job.
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by Stech)
E
EDGEMAN
1y
...would be worth the addition...lol
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
** Edited by Stech at 4/21/2025, 8:08:01 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
H
HOO86
1y
Travel. We'll have to see it those schools can swing it.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
San Diego State, Oregon State, SMU and ND. Then 1 game against the others, maybe not playing everyone in the regular season like we do in football. However when a team goes east or west, play a series of teams. That could make the travel more manageable.
(In response to this post by HOO86)