Memphis Reportedly Makes $200M Offer to Join Big 12, League Not Interested
Link:
Bleacher Report
60 Replies
1y
After Clemson and FSU leave
(In response to this post by OU_Sooner)
The ACC could probably use that deal more than the BigXII. The ACCN can add
carriage fees for the state of Tennessee then, correct?
Memphis seems to be the bastard of college sports.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/21/2025, 9:56:40 PM
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
H
HouClone
1y
That changed the past couple years with Comcast and DirecTV pushing back and winning after SMU, Stanford, and Cal were added.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HOO86
1y
It would be to get the ACC Network Carriage fees for Tennessee. But the ACC would have to overlook atrocious academics, which now adding Stanford and Cal to the mix we already had makes it problematic for Memphis I believe.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
One of the issues with modern mega-conferences (16 teams or more) is that
it dilutes the power and benefits of an individual school. For example, if Stanford and Cal have an issue with Memphis's academic profile, it matters very little if the rest of the conference wants the Tigers. They have very little pull compared to their days in the Pac-12, not to mention the Pac-8.
In terms of the benefits, while 200 million (and in the ACC, adding in Tennessee carriage fees) seems like a ton of money for one school to buy into another conference, once you divide that money between a dozen and half schools, the money might still not be enough to get their yes votes.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/22/2025, 11:52:42 AM
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
It's Stanford, Cal, Duke, Wake Forest, UVA, UNC, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and Boston College having issue with it. Perhaps others like Miami, VT and Pitt. That's what would have to be overcome. If they overlook the long term standards that they have lived by to take the $200 million so be it, but I think it to be long odds.
** Edited by HOO86 at 7/22/2025, 12:00:58 PM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
will have to come up with the money to compete nationally, and unless they are rich like Stanford, where is the money coming from?
(In response to this post by HOO86)
1y
Ivy Light when you look at Stanford, Cal, Duke, Notre Dame, UVA, Wake. If football first schools decide to leave i think Rice and Tulane would get a look but not Memphis.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
which is unique because it existed informally before it became an athletics entity.
Academics don't function based on conferences, except in some fairly inconsequential ways.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
S
Stech
1y
-ing to go to the B12 when they had Texas and Oklahoma. Otherwise as @HOO86 has said, itâs been top 100 schools. I know some think academics shouldnât matter to Presidents, but in the ACC they do matter, same with B1G and more recently with the expansion schools, the SEC.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
the presidents of any University. Education is the Universities business model, and attracting top students, professors, and reputation helps in recruiting and research dollars. Always have, and always will. Insert athletes for students, and it's the same business model for athletic departments.
I don't think it's a binary choice, but I'm a college athletics fan. many think that one has nothing to do with the other, but the concept is the same.
Harvard and MIT will not lose any educational stature as being the top Universities that can attract the best of the best in professors and students buy not competing for national championships in athletics. Conversely, Alabama, Mississippi State, LSU and others in the SEC, Nebraska, and many public Universities in the B12 will never be considered as top educational institutions based on the ranking systems that are used to rank top educational colleges. Does that mean that those presidents do not care about their education rankings?
For athletic conferences and FBS football especially, every institution wants to be the best of the best, or at least be in the same conversation.
I don't think anyone would put Alabama or (pick a Big 12 school) in the same league academically as a MIT, Stanford, or (pick a top academic school) no matter how many national championships they win in sport. Personally, I think the comparisons when talking about FBS or division one misses the mark.
Why/how does an inner city University University come up with over $200M to play the best of the best in college football and basketball? No one fair minded would ever put Memphis in the same category academically of almost all FBS schools, let alone the top 1/2 of schools in the FBS. What is Memphis' ROI? It certainly isn't making money in athletics.
It's a legit question. Memphis will never make enough money to turn a profit in athletics no matter if they are in a power conference or not. So why is it so important to them?
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
so important to Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, BYU, Wyoming, Wake, BC, Miss State, Wazzou, Notre Dame, Delaware, Toledo, and any other DI-FBS school you want to include on the list. If you think about it, then you should see that question is not that different than when a school decides on whether to compete in the FBS subdivision or FCS subdivision for DI football.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
athletics" though? If "big time athletics" is inching towards an employee based model, then there may not be a place for academics in that world. At least the ACC may have to decide just how serious is it about wanting to compete in "big time athletics."
(In response to this post by Stech)
1y
regardless of "big time" or not. It's nonsensical for the two to be significantly related. Yes, presidents will refer to academics in conference (re)alignment contexts, but they kind of have to, being as they oversee *academic* institutions.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
and asked them what they thought Stanford should do regarding athletics. They overwhelmingly voted that they wanted to compete at the highest level against the best of the best. Stanford, of all schools in FBS, does not need athletics for branding, student recruitment, or any educational metric. Yet, they continue to compete and strive for excellence in athletics.
Then you have a Memphis. While they will never be a Stanford, or even discussed in the same academic measures, why would their mandate be any different?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
in the process of changing. If the "end product" for "big time athletics" is an employee based model with no or minimal educational requirements (i.e. NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc.), then that may not align well with the mission of institutions of higher learning. It is possible under the current DI-FBS vs. DI-FCS alignment that DI-FCS better aligns with the mission of the NCAA. At least in terms of the NCAA's original mission statement when its predecessor was formed in the early 1900s. It is even possible that DI-FCS is rebranded as the "highest form of collegiate football" under the "DI football brand" because the remaining schools decide DI football no longer needs 2 subdivisions. Given that a group of schools may/will be participating in a different version of football (or "collegiate athletics" in general depending on how things play out), will the public view that version as "big time athletics" or buy into the rebranded DI athletics (minus the P2 conferences plus any schools that join the group)?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
the needle and retain the "student athlete". No matter where the money falls, it is my contention that no matter where this lands, the University presidents will want to maintain that status, even if it is an illusion.
We talk about a semi professional league breaking away, but I have yet to hear one single University President stating that is the goal.
They may not have a choice.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
Presidents need athletics to remain academically linked somehow and "student-athlete" does that...otherwise, is athletics really serving the mission of the institution?
Schools allowed themselves to be painted into a corner with the evolution of big-time athletics and now it's difficult to see a way out.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
this may only be temporary solution. If the federal government (or state governments) don't get involved on this issue, then at some point the courts will likely get involved on it. Now that schools can pay the athletes directly, at some point an athletic will ask the questions if schools can legally require the athletes to attend class and/or limit the athlete's eligibility window. Both questions will be based on the current requirements schools have for their other employees (i.e. professors, deans, sanitation engineers, secretaries, maintenance workers, cooks, etc.).
At the very least schools would be forced to show the courts why athletes should receive the same classification as regular students participating in a work-study program instead of being treated as a regular employee. The reason I mentioned the work-study program is because the funding source is on the academic side of the house. If the courts rule in favor of the schools, then it could open the door to asking whether the academic side should be required to pay for all or part of the athlete's salary due to the "education requirements." If nothing else it may close some loopholes that schools are using to thread the needle and circumvent things.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
reconning. Having the conferences in control and deciding the future will not hold IMHO. The insane asylum will have to be brought under control by someone other than the inmates.
Like it or not, it's fascinating.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
give and when will it give. Once that happens then all bets are off on what will come out on the other side. You are right a reconning is likely on the horizon because for far too long the schools have been able to have their cake and eat it too. Hence why I raised the possibility of 2 different groups of schools forming and questioning how the public will view those as they relate to each other and even the respective pro league.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
institutions forming a conference, and associating with other like institutions. Whether geography or academics, schools tended to be in the same category.
Obviously, we have gotten away from that model because of money. ND used to be the only institution that competed with a national schedule at the highest level. Except for the SEC and a couple of G conferences, that model has been turned upside down.
I could see another "academic" conference forming, but it will be because they are not included in the money and national competition, not because the WANT to form an "academic" conference.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
1y
the response would have been different?
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
No. But perhaps it should be.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
moves around 2030 as contracts reset in the BIG, SEC, and B12. While we don't know what will happen around 2030, what we do know is that the contracts will be different for 3 out of the 4 conferences.
Schools on the outside looking in are now negotiating the price. SMU and others that take a partial distribution to be included during an existing contract have set the table. Memphis just raised the bar for those wanting to be "included" in the new P4.
Those wanting to be included in the BIG and SEC should take note. Memphis is attempting to play the long game, and apparently has the money to back it up.
I have mixed feelings about whether the B12 should take the money, as it amounts to $3M more per school for the duration of the current contract. On the other hand, their media numbers do not bring value for the next contract.
Because of geography, academics, and history, Memphis has more in common with SEC schools than B12 or ACC schools. How much would they have to offer to get an SEC invite? $1B?
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
1y
safe to say that Memphis should be in the same conference as L'ville and Cincy regardless of the conference name. You probably could include UAB and So. Miss because of the historic rivalries with both schools.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
1y
I remember a report about Memphis having a talk with the ACC back in 2021 or 2022.
Also from Dellengerâs article:
âThe pricy nature of Memphisâ offer speaks to its unwavering desire to elevate to a power conference â something the program attempted to do years ago with the ACC.â
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
They dont have their act together and after the recent cheating issue, no way. They are stuck...
(In response to this post by thebluelot)
1y
Their best bet is the B12. Maybe in 5 yearsâĻ
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
1y
(In response to this post by Windows NT)
1y
(In response to this post by Windows NT)
1y
couple of years. Then again, there may be multiple preparedness in play here. If so, then will the answer be the same or different when the ACC is forced to answer the question?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Watch this video (particularly from the 9:20 mark).
I am firmly in this camp.
In fact, I've been predicting this for a while (even before this video): the ACC will lose some schools and will backfill with B12 schools.
Link:
Brian Murphy
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
need to prepare for multiple land mines. Some examples of those potential land mines include the following:
Will the ACC exist as a conference?
If the ACC exists, then will it be a power conference or G/mid-major conference?
If the ACC exists, then will it be a FBS conference or FCS conference?
If the ACC exists, then will it continue receiving power conference like media contracts going forward or will the ACC see a shift into more G/mid-major like numbers?
If there is a shift in the financial numbers, then how will the ACC and/or its members cope with this change?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
1) will there be a break away?
2) will some conferences start the employee model?
3) will there be a football only super league?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
direct impact on the ACC in terms of whether the ACC is well prepared or not. Even if those questions have an indirect impact on the ACC, it may not be enough to have any impact on the "Is the ACC well prepared or not?" question.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
IMO, the ACC is positioning itself as an academic focused alternative to the P2 in case the P2 and other conferences adopt the employee model or breaks away, meaning the ACC will likely stay in the NCAA frame.
Phillis was appointed to the NCAA Board of Governors. Tim Sands was selected as chair of NCAA Division I Board.
As for the realignment, IMO, the ACC is preparing for a planned restructuring for 2030.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
the grand scheme of things which options a conference takes because both will have their pros and cons.
The more interesting thing could end up being how the public views the two groups when comparing them to each other. Will people refer to the NCAA's group as "DII" like people, including posters on here, currently do with DI-FBS? If so, then can the NCAA's and conferences' egos handle the reference or even the fact that the highest level of NCAA athletics is no longer the highest level of college athletics?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
influence when it came to making decisions for either the DI subdivision or the entire DI.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
The Ivy League schools chose academics and de-emphasized football long time ago.
The employee model is something that many elite schools may have problems with. There is a possibility in the future that football players may not even need to take classes. Whatâs the point of playing the highest level?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
'90s with the creation of the Bowl Coalition. The Bowl Coalition was then replaced by the Bowl Alliance in the mid-90s. The Bowl Alliance was then replaced by the BCS and the rest is history.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
Many elite schools wonât care a bit if their football teams donât compete at the highest level, if that level is 'college' football in name only.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
compete in the DI-FBS subdivision instead of the DI-FCS subdivision? You even saw a group of schools bring a lawsuit in the early '80s after they were told they would be competing in the DI-FCS subdivision. When you look at the conference realignment movement since 1980, there have been only a handful of schools who have chosen to switch from DI-FBS to DI-FCS in football. Idaho being the most recent school. The schools have had plenty of opportunities to show they don't care if their football team doesn't compete at the highest level of college football. So far, their actions do not support your claim.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
1y
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
H
HouClone
1y
was getting waxed in the AAC by Houston, Cincy, Memphis, and UCF. Cal and Stanford have got to be hemorrhaging money on the travel and limited media money coming in. All three are temporarily doing this to ensure they were at the table until the next reckoning happens in 2030/31.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
H
HOO86
1y
Louisville is 179, which is very bad. Memphis is 269, which is atrocious.
(In response to this post by Windows NT)
1y
with each other for position, doesn't that suggest at some point people may need to change how they perceive the rankings? If schools are supposed to be motivated to improve their academic standards for various reasons and every school makes an effort, then over time it should lead to a natural shift up in the standards compared to today's standards. Likewise, the same should be true for today's standards when comparing them to the standards 5 or 10 years ago.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
1y
They were in those ranges that were worse than got ranked before USN&WR started ranking more. So that's an improvement I guess. At least they are ahead of Southern Mississippi at 342. I guess that means something. The ACC is hard pressed to consider any option worse than 100.
The Rankings are fluid I know, but Memphis has been consistent through it all.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1y
that the general public probably isn't familiar with each school's academic standards. As a result, they are making assumptions about a school based solely on where that school ranks in a given year. If a school finishes near the top, then the assumption is the school has great academics. Likewise, if a school finishes near the bottom, then the assumption is the school has horrible academics.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the rankings are structured in such a way that it is possible for a whole group of schools to finish "last" with the same ranking (i.e. 100). Even if it were possible, it is likely people would assume that a rank of 100 is equivalent to the ranking of 500 (assuming 500 was dead last in a prior ranking). What I am curious to know is whether it is possible there could come a day when a school is ranked #350 and be perceived to have the same academic standards as a school ranked #110. If so, then how would people know that day has come vs. continuing to make the assumption that a school ranked #350 (out of #500) must have horrible academic standard? I mean some school must finished dead last even when comparing the Ivy Leagues, Carnegie Melon, University of Chicago, Stanford, Cal-Berkley, W&M, and Vandy.
(In response to this post by HOO86)