Should ACC & B12 exchange Cal, Stanford, & SMU for WVA, UCF, Cincy? (link)
Link:
-X-
43 Replies
H
hokieZ71
1y
At least in this new world of the P2. Notre Dame doesn’t need anybody else’s help for football and Stanford and Duke don’t need anybody else’s help for much of anything. Cal is on a long term, 8-figure vampiric deal from UCLA’s B1G funds and can tag along indefinitely. I’d imagine the 4 of them can make whatever league they want that makes them feel good about themselves.
(In response to this post by Hokester)
Perhaps Stanford and Cal could have gone independent.
They could schedule some of the West Coast teams that left for the B1G, they could schedule ND some, they could play Oregon St. and Wazzu some, they could play other high end academic schools around the nation like Vandy, Tulane, Rice, Duke, and they could just play some G6 West Coast teams to fill out the schedule.
Particularly Stanford seems to have money and Cal has money too, plus Calimony from UCLA. And the ACC is barely paying them anything right now anyway.
Let's say a Stanford schedule might look like this:
UCLA
ND
Oregon State
Rice
San Jose St.
Cal
Washington
Tulane
Duke
Idaho
Utah
Fresno St.
Air Force
Being undefeated with this schedule would be good enough to get in the CFP probably.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
1y
They chose playing ND, Duke, UNC, Miami, Syracuse, UVa, GT, BC, etc… They are happy with the ACC.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HouClone
1y
Big 12 didn't want another Texas/Oklahoma snob but on academics and non-revenue sports. Big 12 pack their stadiums for football and basketball. Cal and Stanford just don't care about those.
SMU was already in the footprint and thus not needed.
UCF, Cincy, and WVU bring passionate fans with big states (Cincy, UCF) and eastern time zone so I wouldn't do it if I was the Big 12.
Stanford and Cal fit in better than the 3 Big 12 schools for the ACC due to the ACC valuing more academics and non-revenue sports.
** Edited by HouClone at 7/5/2025, 11:11:12 AM
(In response to this post by Hokester)
V
VPI 1924
1y
Why bother. However both conferences should end NIL and salary for athletes.
(In response to this post by Hokester)
S
Stech
1y
The better question is why didn’t they want them, but they did want Stanford, Cal and SMU?
Riddle me this one Batman!! 🦇 I would love to know what the majority of the board thinks without my bias.
(In response to this post by Hokester)
D
daveinop
1y
timing has a lot to do with this...different economic era today. I remember when many, me included, thought Maryland was crazy.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
1y
and are still crazy but, they got their landing spot, even if it had very little to do with their actual program.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
S
Stech
1y
them, but ESPN may not have been interested in them being in the ACC or the Duke’s or others also.
(In response to this post by daveinop)
1y
and Cal & Stanford also provide a late night TV slot.
WVU has a very small market and its poor state is not growing. We remember good ole days when both VT and WVU were good.
The ACC already have two FL schools and doesn’t need UCF unless FSU and/or Miami leaves. Same logic applies for the B12 and SMU. They have four TX schools and doesn’t need a fifth school.
Cincy is not a bad choice, it was just not a top choice. As I said before, the ACC should target Utah and ASU first. Kansas, Arizona, and Colorado are also probably better choice. I think Houston and Cincy have a fighting chance.
Academics is obvious so I am not going to mention that.
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
You have to combine Stanford and Cal to get the attendance and TV ratings that WVU brings to the table. WVU also adds more value to VTech, Cuse, Pitt, Louisville.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
The Bay Area has a significantly larger (4x larger) population (7.7 mil) than the entire state of West Virginia (1.7 mil).
People don’t mention this, but the Bay Area is also MUCH wealthier than West Virginia.
While WVU fans, “on average”, may watch more college football games than people in the Bay Area, I bet Bay Area fans spend more on sports TV subscriptions (including ESPN and ACCN whether cable or streaming) “in total” than WVU fans.
Let's face it. State schools largely depend on the economy of their state. WVU is not in a good spot.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
Revenue gained from market size is less relevant than it's ever been. Nielsen also admitted earlier this year that they've been significantly undervaluing rural markets and have adjusted how they calculate ratings. Rural markets for nationally televised games are playing a larger part than in previous years. This is going to help the SEC and BigXII tremendously and the Big12 throttled the ACC in TV ratings last year even with 1 less team. Although to your market point, after Morgantown the largest WVU alumni cities are Pittsburgh, Charlotte, and Washington DC. There are a lot WVU fans in these cities consuming CFB/CBB. In some places at a clip that would put them 2nd or 3rd to their local universities.
Southwestern VA is also shrinking, by the way. Which should concern you because that's VTech's immediate market. WVU's immediate market is Morgantown metro which is still growing. Marshall is more negatively affected by your points, not WVU. Northeastern WV is doing very well.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
I don’t see any scenario uner which the ACC is inviting WVU.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
WVU would've been invited when Maryland left if they hadn't already signed the GOR to the BigXII Now there's no way WVU would join. 2025 they'll be playing in sold out stadiums with more viewership in all time zones and coming back home to host Utah and Colorado. As much as WVU fans want to play UL and VT annually, that's not enough to trade in Tempe, Tuscon, SLC/Provo, Stillwater, Lubbock, Ft. Worth for half empty stadiums in North Carolina and Virginia. The ACC has too many dead brands to pull in West Virginia.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
My opinion is clear: the ACC will never invite WVU.
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
Just like Utah, ASU, Oregon, Alabama, or Maryland won't be invited. They're unattainable.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
It’s not about academics. It’s about business.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
R
RJHokie
1y
SMU brought the Texas market, recruiting, etc. though it was a hard sell.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
2
2hhoop3
1y
at least a significant one, on this board unless heavily influenced by visitors. There are pros and cons with each group of 3. However, the ACC's pressing need is cash and only one of those groups guarantees cash right out of the gate.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
I would like it if you would answer my question above.
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)
That's fine but you said exchange. Not happening.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
wanted.
(In response to this post by VaTechHokiesACC)
1y
Clemson were suing to get the exit fees lowered and a ruling on grant of rights. The ACC contract, if I remember correctly, has a clause that they have to have a certain number of schools. CalFord and SMU were the best available on the board, and they all agreed to come on with a decreased media money share.
The ACC expansion was not driven by academics, it was not driven by ND, it was driven by survival of the existing contract. ND may have an interest in the ACC staying together, and even thriving, but those moves by the ACC were in no way shape or form moves to enhance their position as an athletic conference. Those moves were a way to keep your conference, ant contract, in one piece.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
sion. Notre Dame led the Stanford, Cal and SMU expansion, and Clemson, FSU and UNC voted against it. It’s all documented.
** Edited by Stech at 7/7/2025, 8:57:12 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
or without FSU and Clemson. CalFord were the best on the board, ND has a history with Stanford, and the academics were in line. The idea that ND wanted to add those schools to the detriment of the conference is just plain misguided. No one knew how those lawsuits would play out at the time, and the moves by the ACC was most definitely based in self preservation, and the opportunity to enhance existing membership media money was too much to pass up.
Without CalFord, the ACC was in danger of losing ND in addition to FSU and Clemson. While this is all just my opinion, instead of criticizing ND, you should be thanking them for being instrumental in keeping your conference together.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
You are the only one that said that. Of course ND thought they were good for the Conference, but also ND is thinking about themselves first. The point though is ND led the Expansion and Jim Phillips recognized them, and 3 schools were against it. Unfortunately, they are the three most valued schools in the Conference, so there is some debate on whether it was good or not.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
Have seen no press release that ND led the expansion.
The ACC added those schools for survival.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
nonsense.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
things you guys have going in your conference, yet the get blamed for stuff they have no control over.
We can disagree without arguing, can't we?
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
Coast to Coast Conference guy for Football TV money. so we can agree to disagree on this part. If they can come up with a way to get the Olympic Sports Regular season back to regional I would be thrilled. The Olympic Sports don't play 6 away games on the weekends. Often these athletes go on to be Doctors, Dentist, Lawyers, Engineers, Captains of industry and Military Officers. They need to keep their grades up and missing school and traveling all the time because 6 away games a year on the weekend for the football is close to being morally bankrupt. Notre Dame played a huge part in that happening, and I don't like it one bit. They wanted Stanford and Cal, and Jim Phillips thanked them for their help in getting them. Don't believe me ask TerryD.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
1y
The ESPN composition clause requirement of having at least fifteen schools in the conference at all times was the issue.
FSU, Clemson and maybe North Carolina were making noise about leaving, potentially triggering the clause.
ND wanted the ACC to stay together for its own reasons. The main one was protecting football independence.
If ND didn't take care of its own interests, who would ? Every school looks towards taking care of its own interests first.
So, the issue was how to keep the conference together ? Viola........Stanford, Cal and SMU.
Tell me, what other three schools were willing to join the ACC and available at present ?? None, that is who.
Jack Swarbrick graduated from Stanford Law School, so he has a soft spot for that school and wanted to help it.
Cal and SMU were just along for the ride to make up the numbers. That, and they are elite academic schools that fit the profile.
ND was instrumental in getting those three schools into the ACC. Big 12 guy is right, you should thank ND.
Losing three schools without replacements would have threatened the ESPN contract and the ACC may have been toast.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
off base. I won’t get into the name game with you, but there are plenty of schools that would have joined the ACC if invited. I am not thanking Notre Dame for saving the conference, when one could make a strong case that the favoritism especially by Jim “Dame” Phillips is a big reason Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina and even for a while NC State were against. Virginia Tech’s President went to Cal, so no way he was voting against it. However, I hate the Coast to Coast travel for our Olympic Sports, which I care deeply about. Sorry, I will not kiss the Notre Dame ring for this expansion, just the opposite.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
1y
Which three schools were ready, willing and able to join the ACC two years ago ??
Which were unencumbered by huge exit fees or GOR ?
Which schools were better options at the time ?
Someone should have told the ACC presidents to vote for them instead
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
1y
were plenty of schools that would have accepted an ACC invite. ND did not save the ACC, with particularly Cal and Stanford adds. In fact it helped deepen the wound with Clemson, FSU and UNC about staying in the conference.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
"It’s all just a thought exercise." Here's what the article doesn't say.
Cal, Stanford and SMU are in the ACC at a huge discount. SMU is basically playing for free for something like nine years. I doubt Cincy, WVU, and UCF would be willing and able to do this.
Also, California and Texas are more valuable to the ACC because of ACCN carriage fees. Granted, if the deal was done, the ACC would pick up West Virginia and Ohio. But that wouldn't yield as much money for the ACC.
In general, I'd like WVU, but not so much the other two. OTOH, I don't mind having Cal and Stanford. But I think it's nuts that they are so far away from the rest of the conference. If anything, I'd rather add some schools in the Pacific and Mountain Time Zones.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/4/2025, 11:21:51 PM
(In response to this post by Hokester)
I thought Cal & Stanford didn't want to associate...
with the Big 12 schools and the Big 12 didn't want anything to do with SMU? If so, Cal and Stanford would've joined the Big 12 when Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado did. SMU only joined the ACC because no other P-4 conference wanted them.
(In response to this post by Hokester)
1y
The BIg 12 didn't want SMU on equal footing. Enough Texas teams at that level.
** Edited by HokiesACC2004 at 7/5/2025, 12:43:26 AM
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
1y
(In response to this post by HokiesACC2004)