StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

6956bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

CAL4LIFE said:

---

Cal's viability to maintain P5 consideration w/ the B1G rests squarely on their ability to show signs of life in both major revenue sports for '23-24. Thus, the reason we see so many changes in approach by Cal w/ Wilcox changing his philosophical course offensively, the ground swell NIL push + portal emphasis, and the new high energy Madsen era in hoops.

Cal has been on life supports for far too long yet still has a pulse.

Now it comes down to game day execution and becoming unavoidable (relevant again) in the national conversation.

As I have said on these forums from the beginning of their inception: the only thing that prevents Cal from being successful in revenue athletics is Cal.

It's literally their last chance to get it right.

---

There is a lot of truth in this. If UW and UO do leave for 2024 that could be the catalyst for Cal to get an invite. For all the negativity around Cal athletics they do sit in a lucrative market and the number of B1G alums here is quite large. But Cal needs to give the B1G (and TV) a reason to believe.

IMO there is no logical reason for the B1G if they are considering more western expansion to exclude the Bay Area. But Cal needs to win, attract fans to the stadium and show some eyeballs when they play on TV. The TV problem is many games will be on P12 network due to years and years of ineptitude on the field.

The revenue teams are showing some life. Mens hoops in particular. But they have a long history of poor play and unless the B1G delays expansion and the P12 gets a deal it may not matter what they do in 2023. At least for getting an invite to the B1G.

But the bolded sentence above is a big concern. I see a few recent things that give me some hope, but the history is long and not great. My big hope is they have been advised they would be invited but need to see an investment that shows some level of seriousness.

---

All sounds like wishful thinking to me. The Big "needing" a West coast division, pod, whatever term you want to use-show them where it makes them more money, and then they will figure out the "need."
That Cal can somehow act in such a way in the short term that shows potential to make the Big money in the medium or long terms is beyond my pay grade for sure. That further expansion is needed for the Big, adding more slices to the pie (meaning splitting the money) is incredibly hopeful. They didn't do only SC and UCLA just to be polite...there wasn't an immediate need seen by them....and okay, if that's not right, then what's the hold up? Because behind the scenes schools have been turning them down? Right, I don't believe that either.
"Cal didn't do this, Cal didn't do that, it's Cal's own fault"....come on, the Pac-12, thanks to Larry Scott first and foremost(and Kliavkoff a little), didn't see this coming and got crushed...I don't think for a second that, even if Cal has a miracle football season, the Big is going to be begging them to join...okay, I will leave the door open slightly hoping that Cal can show the conference that, in the long term, things are now set up differently, so the future is brighter (and "brighter" means more lucrative for all)....but I had to slide Blue and Gold classes on for that sentence...

---

The B1G does not "need" a west coast pod. But they do want one. But yes there is a price. The recent news regarding UO and UW heading to B1G for 2024 is due to the networks agreeing to pay a bit more to add these teams. Fox, NBC and CBS it is being "reported" have agreed to chip in a bit more each to pay for the move.

The B1G wants to be a true coast to coast conference. Most believe that if the B1G adds those 2 it will be at reduced shares for now. So no current B1G school needs to take a pay cut to add these teams. The B1G network also wants to sell subscritions. They feel that Seattle is a good market for that as Portland may be as well. The networks likely feel strong advertising revenues may be available by being a true every time zone conference.

The Bay Area makes sense for this as well. But the local programs have not shown a great apetite to watch the locals on TV. So there likely would need to be an additional provider to add Cal and Stanford.

The strategy also is to be positioned for what seems to be the inevitable creation of a Super Division of college football. Adding UW and UO helps in that area. The Bay Area may be as well.

The western pod is not just a football thing. Teams will need to travel for the other sports. Like hoops, baseball and volleyball (which is a big sport in the B1G). So it looks to me like the B1G is adding where they can now. Western teams are available now. The P12 media contract ends at the end of the 2023-2024 schedule. There are other benefits as well. B1G alums in the P12 markets are many. They may very well contribute more via donations as their teams now play in their current living market. Recruiting improves. And while these schools can and do work together now on research and other things, conference affiliaiton strengthens those alliances and more monies are generated for research etc. Ask Utah President about that. They have seen applications, research money and donations increase by being affiliated with the P12 conference.

It is not just about sports. But sure sports performance does matter. The Networks will be paying for any expansion so you have to have a pulse and make an effort to put forth a product people will watch. But sure the money matters. But the money need not come just from the games themselves. But you will almost certainly see attendance improve. A Cal game vs OSU or UA will draw maybe 40,000 if Cal is any good. What do you think a Cal vs Ohio St or Penn St or Michigan or even Nebraska would draw?

Lots of reasons to be a coast to coast conference. If the only consideration was on field results Cal would have no chance at the B1G. But the B1G having every P5 program in California is a big deal IMO. As would having a piece of every time slot available on a typical college football Saturday. My guess is a 7:30PST game between say UW and Stanford or Cal would draw better than any Big 12 matchup. Why? Because now these west coast games matter to B1G fans where before they could care less.

---

We don't have to imagine what Ohio State vs. Cal could draw, even with a bad Cal team. We literally saw that not too long ago in 2013 when Ohio State fans took over Memorial Stadium. Granted, who knows how things might change if this match-up is more routine but I'd guess the only thing that changes is the balance of Cal vs. Ohio State fans as it seems clear there was interest from Ohio State fans to show up to a game in Berkeley.

---

Easy enough to not make it routine, especially assuming Ohio St. and Cal are in different divisions as it were...if Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, and throw in Wisconsin, (another post mentioned Nebraska and they totally brought a bunch of people to Cal) each came to Cal once every 4/5 years, then it's a win win for all...potentially strong traveling parties, but aren't coming out too often to make it a "so what" kind of deal...let alone the fanbases that exist in the Bay Area of those universities.
But the "win win" for the fan bases and Cal doesn't necessarily give the decision makers a good reason to split the Big pie...unless added value is proven, or they feel a threat of some of the Pac teams going to the ACC or Big 12 and somehow that hurting the TV revenue stream.
Again, why it's good for Cal isn't really a stretch...this is really all about the biggest sports cliche out there, this is the Big saying "show me the money."

BigDaddy said:

---

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. These schools, @RossDellenger reported, have met in past several months, w/lawyers examining grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

---

Interesting. GaTech and Duke are not part of the Magnificent 7 and, yet, would seem to have a reasonable shot of getting a Big Ten invite. VaTech and NCState are part of the groups and yet would seem less secure of a landing spot if the ACC GOR disappears.

berserkeley said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. These schools, @RossDellenger reported, have met in past several months, w/lawyers examining grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

---

Interesting. GaTech and Duke are not part of the Magnificent 7 and, yet, would seem to have a reasonable shot of getting a Big Ten invite. VaTech and NCState are part of the groups and yet would seem less secure of a landing spot if the ACC GOR disappears.

---

I'm thinking there are some in state politics that tie NC State to UNC and Va Tech to UVA.

berserkeley said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. These schools, @RossDellenger reported, have met in past several months, w/lawyers examining grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

---

Interesting. GaTech and Duke are not part of the Magnificent 7 and, yet, would seem to have a reasonable shot of getting a Big Ten invite. VaTech and NCState are part of the groups and yet would seem less secure of a landing spot if the ACC GOR disappears.

---

College football has a big problem. 2 conferences hold all the power primarily. And the others are not happy about it. It is a very unequal situation. In the ACC there is no doubt that FSU and Clemson are the primary drivers of whatever football revenues the conference gets.

The TV deals have set up a system that is rewarding programs like Vanderbilt, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers that are very small parts of their individual conferences success (in football anyway). But they have a gigantic financial advantage over flourishing programs just by being in a specific conference.

What really needs to happen IMO is a creation of a major super conference format. Take most of the current P5 and some high performing G5 programs and create this new coalition of programs. Create a more equitable TV revenue distribution model and use the CFP money to help programs compete.

Shared revenue will only be for the Big10/SEC (because the money is a lot). Eventually everyone else eats what they kill, that includes what's left of the PAC-12, ACC, and maybe B12.

How is the unequal revenue measured? That sounds tricky.

Folks been predicting that Stanford would go Indy if the P12 fell apart and they weren't invited to B10. But wouldn't Stanford want to be part of a conference to get into the expanded playoffs? Same augment for Cal.

6956bear said:

---

What really needs to happen IMO is a creation of a major super conference format. Take most of the current P5 and some high performing G5 programs and create this new coalition of programs.

---

This has already happened. It's a coalition of the Big Ten and SEC.

6956bear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. These schools, @RossDellenger reported, have met in past several months, w/lawyers examining grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

---

Interesting. GaTech and Duke are not part of the Magnificent 7 and, yet, would seem to have a reasonable shot of getting a Big Ten invite. VaTech and NCState are part of the groups and yet would seem less secure of a landing spot if the ACC GOR disappears.

---

College football has a big problem. 2 conferences hold all the power primarily. And the others are not happy about it. It is a very unequal situation. In the ACC there is no doubt that FSU and Clemson are the primary drivers of whatever football revenues the conference gets.

The TV deals have set up a system that is rewarding programs like Vanderbilt, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers that are very small parts of their individual conferences success (in football anyway). But they have a gigantic financial advantage over flourishing programs just by being in a specific conference.

What really needs to happen IMO is a creation of a major super conference format. Take most of the current P5 and some high performing G5 programs and create this new coalition of programs. Create a more equitable TV revenue distribution model and use the CFP money to help programs compete.

---

It would literally take an act of Congress. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Ideally, conferences would be eliminated and college football would be divided into 4 regions: East, Midwest, West and South. Each region would be split into divisions, with promotion and relegation between the divisions and a 16 team playoff deciding the national champion.

The rights to broadcast individual games would be auctioned off before the season, or each week. All other games would be available via streaming. Revenues would be split between the schools and the players.

But the next decade at least will be increased consolation and domination by the SEC and B1G.

As I have said before, Kliavkoff's best move is a preemptive quasi-merger with the B1G or with the ACC.

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. These schools, @RossDellenger reported, have met in past several months, w/lawyers examining grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

---

Interesting. GaTech and Duke are not part of the Magnificent 7 and, yet, would seem to have a reasonable shot of getting a Big Ten invite. VaTech and NCState are part of the groups and yet would seem less secure of a landing spot if the ACC GOR disappears.

---

College football has a big problem. 2 conferences hold all the power primarily. And the others are not happy about it. It is a very unequal situation. In the ACC there is no doubt that FSU and Clemson are the primary drivers of whatever football revenues the conference gets.

The TV deals have set up a system that is rewarding programs like Vanderbilt, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers that are very small parts of their individual conferences success (in football anyway). But they have a gigantic financial advantage over flourishing programs just by being in a specific conference.

What really needs to happen IMO is a creation of a major super conference format. Take most of the current P5 and some high performing G5 programs and create this new coalition of programs. Create a more equitable TV revenue distribution model and use the CFP money to help programs compete.

---

It would literally take an act of Congress. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Ideally, conferences would be eliminated and college football would be divided into 4 regions: East, Midwest, West and South. Each region would be split into divisions, with promotion and relegation between the divisions and a 16 team playoff deciding the national champion.

The rights to broadcast individual games would be auctioned off before the season, or each week. All other games would be available via streaming. Revenues would be split between the schools and the players.

But the next decade at least will be increased consolation and domination by the SEC and B1G.

As I have said before, Kliavkoff's best move is a preemptive quasi-merger with the B1G or with the ACC.

---

Agreed and he would do that if he was being a "fiduciary" and putting the remaining pac10 members interests first. But the guy has no incentive to do so ... He might just look for the best and easiest payoff he can net in the short run and be okay with the pac dissolving in the next 5 years.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

6956bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

6956bear said:

---

CAL4LIFE said:

---

Cal's viability to maintain P5 consideration w/ the B1G rests squarely on their ability to show signs of life in both major revenue sports for '23-24. Thus, the reason we see so many changes in approach by Cal w/ Wilcox changing his philosophical course offensively, the ground swell NIL push + portal emphasis, and the new high energy Madsen era in hoops.

Cal has been on life supports for far too long yet still has a pulse.

Now it comes down to game day execution and becoming unavoidable (relevant again) in the national conversation.

As I have said on these forums from the beginning of their inception: the only thing that prevents Cal from being successful in revenue athletics is Cal.

It's literally their last chance to get it right.

---

There is a lot of truth in this. If UW and UO do leave for 2024 that could be the catalyst for Cal to get an invite. For all the negativity around Cal athletics they do sit in a lucrative market and the number of B1G alums here is quite large. But Cal needs to give the B1G (and TV) a reason to believe.

IMO there is no logical reason for the B1G if they are considering more western expansion to exclude the Bay Area. But Cal needs to win, attract fans to the stadium and show some eyeballs when they play on TV. The TV problem is many games will be on P12 network due to years and years of ineptitude on the field.

The revenue teams are showing some life. Mens hoops in particular. But they have a long history of poor play and unless the B1G delays expansion and the P12 gets a deal it may not matter what they do in 2023. At least for getting an invite to the B1G.

But the bolded sentence above is a big concern. I see a few recent things that give me some hope, but the history is long and not great. My big hope is they have been advised they would be invited but need to see an investment that shows some level of seriousness.

---

All sounds like wishful thinking to me. The Big "needing" a West coast division, pod, whatever term you want to use-show them where it makes them more money, and then they will figure out the "need."
That Cal can somehow act in such a way in the short term that shows potential to make the Big money in the medium or long terms is beyond my pay grade for sure. That further expansion is needed for the Big, adding more slices to the pie (meaning splitting the money) is incredibly hopeful. They didn't do only SC and UCLA just to be polite...there wasn't an immediate need seen by them....and okay, if that's not right, then what's the hold up? Because behind the scenes schools have been turning them down? Right, I don't believe that either.
"Cal didn't do this, Cal didn't do that, it's Cal's own fault"....come on, the Pac-12, thanks to Larry Scott first and foremost(and Kliavkoff a little), didn't see this coming and got crushed...I don't think for a second that, even if Cal has a miracle football season, the Big is going to be begging them to join...okay, I will leave the door open slightly hoping that Cal can show the conference that, in the long term, things are now set up differently, so the future is brighter (and "brighter" means more lucrative for all)....but I had to slide Blue and Gold classes on for that sentence...

---

The B1G does not "need" a west coast pod. But they do want one. But yes there is a price. The recent news regarding UO and UW heading to B1G for 2024 is due to the networks agreeing to pay a bit more to add these teams. Fox, NBC and CBS it is being "reported" have agreed to chip in a bit more each to pay for the move.

The B1G wants to be a true coast to coast conference. Most believe that if the B1G adds those 2 it will be at reduced shares for now. So no current B1G school needs to take a pay cut to add these teams. The B1G network also wants to sell subscritions. They feel that Seattle is a good market for that as Portland may be as well. The networks likely feel strong advertising revenues may be available by being a true every time zone conference.

The Bay Area makes sense for this as well. But the local programs have not shown a great apetite to watch the locals on TV. So there likely would need to be an additional provider to add Cal and Stanford.

The strategy also is to be positioned for what seems to be the inevitable creation of a Super Division of college football. Adding UW and UO helps in that area. The Bay Area may be as well.

The western pod is not just a football thing. Teams will need to travel for the other sports. Like hoops, baseball and volleyball (which is a big sport in the B1G). So it looks to me like the B1G is adding where they can now. Western teams are available now. The P12 media contract ends at the end of the 2023-2024 schedule. There are other benefits as well. B1G alums in the P12 markets are many. They may very well contribute more via donations as their teams now play in their current living market. Recruiting improves. And while these schools can and do work together now on research and other things, conference affiliaiton strengthens those alliances and more monies are generated for research etc. Ask Utah President about that. They have seen applications, research money and donations increase by being affiliated with the P12 conference.

It is not just about sports. But sure sports performance does matter. The Networks will be paying for any expansion so you have to have a pulse and make an effort to put forth a product people will watch. But sure the money matters. But the money need not come just from the games themselves. But you will almost certainly see attendance improve. A Cal game vs OSU or UA will draw maybe 40,000 if Cal is any good. What do you think a Cal vs Ohio St or Penn St or Michigan or even Nebraska would draw?

Lots of reasons to be a coast to coast conference. If the only consideration was on field results Cal would have no chance at the B1G. But the B1G having every P5 program in California is a big deal IMO. As would having a piece of every time slot available on a typical college football Saturday. My guess is a 7:30PST game between say UW and Stanford or Cal would draw better than any Big 12 matchup. Why? Because now these west coast games matter to B1G fans where before they could care less.

---

We don't have to imagine what Ohio State vs. Cal could draw, even with a bad Cal team. We literally saw that not too long ago in 2013 when Ohio State fans took over Memorial Stadium. Granted, who knows how things might change if this match-up is more routine but I'd guess the only thing that changes is the balance of Cal vs. Ohio State fans as it seems clear there was interest from Ohio State fans to show up to a game in Berkeley.

---

There are a lot of Big Ten alumni in the Bay Area so a matchup in Berkeley against a Big Ten power will have some more folks showing up, even just to root against a program like Ohio State.

6956bear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools, sources told @ActionNetworkHQ. These schools, @RossDellenger reported, have met in past several months, w/lawyers examining grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) May 15, 2023

---

Interesting. GaTech and Duke are not part of the Magnificent 7 and, yet, would seem to have a reasonable shot of getting a Big Ten invite. VaTech and NCState are part of the groups and yet would seem less secure of a landing spot if the ACC GOR disappears.

---

College football has a big problem. 2 conferences hold all the power primarily. And the others are not happy about it. It is a very unequal situation. In the ACC there is no doubt that FSU and Clemson are the primary drivers of whatever football revenues the conference gets.

The TV deals have set up a system that is rewarding programs like Vanderbilt, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers that are very small parts of their individual conferences success (in football anyway). But they have a gigantic financial advantage over flourishing programs just by being in a specific conference.

What really needs to happen IMO is a creation of a major super conference format. Take most of the current P5 and some high performing G5 programs and create this new coalition of programs. Create a more equitable TV revenue distribution model and use the CFP money to help programs compete.

---

Personally, I hope that the B1G is looking to build a national conference with 24-32 teams that will break away from the NCAA (and the SEC along with it) and hosting its own playoff and national championship.

If the Big Ten did scoop up Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington and were able to grab, say, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Florida State, they would be a truly national conference that didn't need the SEC to host a national championship game. In fact, the FBS championship would look pretty regional as the SEC would have no one to play against.

The B1G could set their own rules that would have an academics first mentality as opposed to the football first mentality of the SEC. It would probably be the B1G's best shot at finally landing ND who'd have to choose between the B1G plus the best of the Pac-12/ACC or stay independent with no one to play except the SEC. And the B1G could probably pick off some SEC schools like Texas and Missouri.

Of course, this is just fanciful thinking. I just think it's Cal's best chance of playing in a relevant conference because the B1G's goal would collecting the biggest and best research universities in the biggest markets. If that's not the B1G's goal, their goal must be to maximize their per team revenue, which means they're probably done raiding the West Coast and won't make any more moves unless it's ND or a select few ACC teams.

berserkeley said:

---

If the Big Ten did scoop up Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington and were able to grab, say, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Florida State, they would be a truly national conference that didn't need the SEC to host a national championship game. In fact, the FBS championship would look pretty regional as the SEC would have no one to play against..

---

LOL. This take can't be serious.

berserkeley said:

---

Of course, this is just fanciful thinking. I just think it's Cal's best chance of playing in a relevant conference because the B1G's goal would collecting the biggest and best research universities in the biggest markets. If that's not the B1G's goal, their goal must be to maximize their per team revenue, which means they're probably done raiding the West Coast and won't make any more moves unless it's ND or a select few ACC teams.

---

That seems to be the case, per this, which I mentioned in another thread.
https://theathletic.com/4521787/2023/05/15/acc-realignment-grant-of-rights/

Quote:

---

If Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, North Carolina and Miami were to become available, that's a real and major domino to fall in conference realignment. As one Big Ten source put it, "Those schools are where the real value is."

That person was particularly interested in Virginia and North Carolina as new states and/or markets for the Big Ten to extend down the East Coast. This Big Ten source believes expansion out East makes far more sense than expanding into the Pacific Northwest, which has not had nearly enough support internally or among the league's media partners since the idea was first broached. University of Illinois chancellor Robert J. Jones told The Athletic last month that "there was no sense of urgency" for the league to expand beyond USC and UCLA.

---

Calumnus,
Preemptive PAC-12 - ACC merger? Might be the best time if ever (which will be if the GOR is too punitive and airtight to bail now). The merger might allow some kind of media contract renegotiation? Prob will be short term since some schools want to join the P2. But could be longer term for the left behinds.

Also, that might be one fewer conference champ for expanded playoff guaranteed spot.

Lastly, the media ecosystem might be out of money, bad timing, so might be the best thing during a bad situation.

The right time may be coming. Depends what the lawyers say.

Looks like the ACC could crack of enough schools join in the rebellion:

https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-football/sec-acc-greg-sankey-carolina-clemson-virginia-miami-florida-realignment-razorbacks

Pacific and Atlantic Coast Confereence (PACC) is the Hail Mary to save both conferences, but would probably need ESPN backing. One key would be a new media package made possible by having East Coast teams play regular season games on the West Coast in the evening time slots.

calumnus said:

---

Looks like the ACC could crack of enough schools join in the rebellion:

https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-football/sec-acc-greg-sankey-carolina-clemson-virginia-miami-florida-realignment-razorbacks

Pacific and Atlantic Coast Confereence (PACC) is the Hail Mary to save both conferences, but would probably need ESPN backing. One key would be a new media package made possible by having East Coast teams play regular season games on the West Coast in the evening time slots.

---

I agree with the author that this heavily implies that those 7 schools believe they have a bettwr landing spot. I have a hard time believing that anyone is willing to vote to break up the ACC because they have a Big XII invite; the Big XII TV deal is not better than the ACC's. So they must believe they have B1G or SEC invites.

If true, this does not bode well for the Pac-12. The Big XII must be salivating at the prospects of picking up the ACC leftovers.

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Looks like the ACC could crack of enough schools join in the rebellion:

https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-football/sec-acc-greg-sankey-carolina-clemson-virginia-miami-florida-realignment-razorbacks

Pacific and Atlantic Coast Confereence (PACC) is the Hail Mary to save both conferences, but would probably need ESPN backing. One key would be a new media package made possible by having East Coast teams play regular season games on the West Coast in the evening time slots.

---

I agree with the author that this heavily implies that those 7 schools believe they have a bettwr landing spot. I have a hard time believing that anyone is willing to vote to break up the ACC because they have a Big XII invite; the Big XII TV deal is not better than the ACC's. So they must believe they have B1G or SEC invites.

If true, this does not bode well for the Pac-12. The Big XII must be salivating at the prospects of picking up the ACC leftovers.

---

The article implies a multi-step process:
(1) The 7 schools leave all at once, maybe based on some legal theory that if half the conference leaves, either the GOR or the conference itself is dissolved.
(2) There is presumably a deal or assumption that all 7 of these schools will land in either the Big Ten or SEC. It would make sense for 4 to go to the SEC and 3 to go to the Big Ten with Notre Dame joining them there, or if ND still says no to the Big Ten, then maybe Duke or Georgia Tech would be the 4th school moving to the Big Ten.

Article arguing for PAC-12 ACC merger into bicoastal super conference:

https://247sports.com/Article/Why-ACC-Pac-12-merger-to-a-24-team-conference-could-save-both-leagues-205985288/

calumnus said:

---

Looks like the ACC could crack of enough schools join in the rebellion:

https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-football/sec-acc-greg-sankey-carolina-clemson-virginia-miami-florida-realignment-razorbacks

Pacific and Atlantic Coast Confereence (PACC) is the Hail Mary to save both conferences, but would probably need ESPN backing. One key would be a new media package made possible by having East Coast teams play regular season games on the West Coast in the evening time slots.

---

I really agree with the Hail Mary aspect of this...I hope this somehow becomes more than message board speculation...

What say you B1G?

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

Sounds very reasonable .. if only someone could drive it. Everything going on seems so short-sighted and chaotic.

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

Sounds very reasonable .. if only someone could drive it. Everything going on seems so short-sighted and chaotic.

---

ESPN is the key, because they own the ACC's media rights. You could argue a new conference would negate the old media contract and open up bidding, but then the same argument would apply to the ACC's GORs. That is why I say "quasi merger" the key is a structure that legally binds the ACC schools to their ridiculous GORs. I think it is in ESPN's interest to find a solution. It creates compelling content for the hours after the SEC games. The fact both conferences would legally continue to exist would mean both commissioners have jobs. The fact the PAC-10 is leaving Larry Scott's ridiculous SF lease is a good time for consolidation with another conference. The conferences could maintain separate schedules for the vast majority of sports to save travel expenses, but maybe with a post season "championship" game.

The All Coast Conference (ACC) or the Pacific and Atlantic Coast Conference (PAC) or some variation.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

What increased revenue? What increased contract? Whose bidding on it? You just said not Fox. That leaves what, ESPN? ESPN already has a sweetheart deal for the ACC, why on earth would they want to give that up willingly? What do they get out of it?

The problem is networks are driving the show at this point and they want all of the best value teams in one place and they don't care to pay for the sub par performers from a dollar perspective. They don't want to have to pay (what they perceive) to be 30 million a year for Washington State games.

But what's best for the networks is NOT whats best for the long term health/value of the sport. What's best for the sport is inclusiveness, with the shot that any team in Div1 with the right coach / recruiting class can make it to the championships. Dwindle it down to just the high value teams and those teams will lose value. Washington State getting 30 million a year, the same as USC is good for the long term health of the sport. But its bad for USC (especially in the short term). And its bad for Fox/ESPN.

MrGPAC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

What increased revenue? What increased contract? Whose bidding on it? You just said not Fox. That leaves what, ESPN? ESPN already has a sweetheart deal for the ACC, why on earth would they want to give that up willingly? What do they get out of it?

The problem is networks are driving the show at this point and they want all of the best value teams in one place and they don't care to pay for the sub par performers from a dollar perspective. They don't want to have to pay (what they perceive) to be 30 million a year for Washington State games.

---

Yes, TV doesn't want to pay more than about what ACC teams now make.

Almost all of the best college football TV value teams are already in the Big Ten and SEC. (Example: Nearly every week Ohio State has a game, the most watched Big Ten game is Ohio State's game, regardless of their opponent.) TV is thus disinclined to pay "Big Ten money" or "SEC money" for either league to add more teams.

Texas, Oklahoma, and USC were three of the four remaining teams that add significant TV value. The fourth is Notre Dame. Florida State and Clemson think their TV value is on the level or those other four, but TV doesn't agree.

MrGPAC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

What increased revenue? What increased contract? Whose bidding on it? You just said not Fox. That leaves what, ESPN? ESPN already has a sweetheart deal for the ACC, why on earth would they want to give that up willingly? What do they get out of it?

The problem is networks are driving the show at this point and they want all of the best value teams in one place and they don't care to pay for the sub par performers from a dollar perspective. They don't want to have to pay (what they perceive) to be 30 million a year for Washington State games.

But what's best for the networks is NOT whats best for the long term health/value of the sport. What's best for the sport is inclusiveness, with the shot that any team in Div1 with the right coach / recruiting class can make it to the championships. Dwindle it down to just the high value teams and those teams will lose value. Washington State getting 30 million a year, the same as USC is good for the long term health of the sport. But its bad for USC (especially in the short term). And its bad for Fox/ESPN.

---

The ACC is trying to get enough members together to break up the conference. No conference, no GOR, no "great" deal for ESPN.

The increased value is East Coast teams playing games on the West Coast in the later time slots on Saturday night that matter to East Coast viewers so they will stay up and watch, when they wouldn't watch a matchup between two MWC teams. Increased viewership in open time slots is increased value, over and above what ESPN is currently paying the ACC.

That allows ESPN to give the PAC-10 members something at least in line with what the Big -12 is getting and get more money to the existing ACC members to head off the current insurrection. It gives ESPN valuable content to air AFTER the SEC has finished playing. It counters the B1G and Fox who would otherwise grab ACC and PAC-10 schools.

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

What increased revenue? What increased contract? Whose bidding on it? You just said not Fox. That leaves what, ESPN? ESPN already has a sweetheart deal for the ACC, why on earth would they want to give that up willingly? What do they get out of it?

The problem is networks are driving the show at this point and they want all of the best value teams in one place and they don't care to pay for the sub par performers from a dollar perspective. They don't want to have to pay (what they perceive) to be 30 million a year for Washington State games.

But what's best for the networks is NOT whats best for the long term health/value of the sport. What's best for the sport is inclusiveness, with the shot that any team in Div1 with the right coach / recruiting class can make it to the championships. Dwindle it down to just the high value teams and those teams will lose value. Washington State getting 30 million a year, the same as USC is good for the long term health of the sport. But its bad for USC (especially in the short term). And its bad for Fox/ESPN.

---

The ACC is trying to get enough members together to break up the conference. No conference, no GOR, no "great" deal for ESPN.

The increased value is East Coast teams playing games on the West Coast in the later time slots on Saturday night that matter to East Coast viewers so they will stay up and watch, when they wouldn't watch a matchup between two MWC teams. Increased viewership in open time slots is increased value, over and above what ESPN is currently paying the ACC.

That allows ESPN to give the PAC-10 members something at least in line with what the Big -12 is getting and get more money to the existing ACC members to head off the current insurrection. It gives ESPN valuable content to air AFTER the SEC has finished playing. It counters the B1G and Fox who would otherwise grab ACC and PAC-10 schools.

---

The teams that want to leave the ACC want B1G / SEC money. Big12 money isn't going to make them suddenly stop wanting to leave for B1G / SEC money. They are still going to try to leave, and it may even make it easier for them to do so.

Look, I don't like it either. There are a LOT of short sited decisions being made to maximize current contract values that will eventually kill the popularity of the sport. College football is as great / popular as it is due to its inclusion. The upsets, the uncertainty, the fact your local college team participates. These are what make college football better than, say, minor league baseball. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but instead of valuing that they are attempting to break it up and sell off only the most expensive parts.

The good news is for us is that the most likely path to Cal joining the B1G includes the ACC breaking their GoR. It just sucks to leave behind the Pac12, and even if we are included, I'll miss the Washington State / Oregon States of the world.

MrGPAC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

What increased revenue? What increased contract? Whose bidding on it? You just said not Fox. That leaves what, ESPN? ESPN already has a sweetheart deal for the ACC, why on earth would they want to give that up willingly? What do they get out of it?

The problem is networks are driving the show at this point and they want all of the best value teams in one place and they don't care to pay for the sub par performers from a dollar perspective. They don't want to have to pay (what they perceive) to be 30 million a year for Washington State games.

But what's best for the networks is NOT whats best for the long term health/value of the sport. What's best for the sport is inclusiveness, with the shot that any team in Div1 with the right coach / recruiting class can make it to the championships. Dwindle it down to just the high value teams and those teams will lose value. Washington State getting 30 million a year, the same as USC is good for the long term health of the sport. But its bad for USC (especially in the short term). And its bad for Fox/ESPN.

---

The ACC is trying to get enough members together to break up the conference. No conference, no GOR, no "great" deal for ESPN.

The increased value is East Coast teams playing games on the West Coast in the later time slots on Saturday night that matter to East Coast viewers so they will stay up and watch, when they wouldn't watch a matchup between two MWC teams. Increased viewership in open time slots is increased value, over and above what ESPN is currently paying the ACC.

That allows ESPN to give the PAC-10 members something at least in line with what the Big -12 is getting and get more money to the existing ACC members to head off the current insurrection. It gives ESPN valuable content to air AFTER the SEC has finished playing. It counters the B1G and Fox who would otherwise grab ACC and PAC-10 schools.

---

The teams that want to leave the ACC want B1G / SEC money. Big12 money isn't going to make them suddenly stop wanting to leave for B1G / SEC money. They are still going to try to leave, and it may even make it easier for them to do so.

Look, I don't like it either. There are a LOT of short sited decisions being made to maximize current contract values that will eventually kill the popularity of the sport. College football is as great / popular as it is due to its inclusion. The upsets, the uncertainty, the fact your local college team participates. These are what make college football better than, say, minor league baseball. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but instead of valuing that they are attempting to break it up and sell off only the most expensive parts.

The good news is for us is that the most likely path to Cal joining the B1G includes the ACC breaking their GoR. It just sucks to leave behind the Pac12, and even if we are included, I'll miss the Washington State / Oregon States of the world.

---

The PAC-10 is the one that needs to get to B-12 money at a minimum or risk losing the 4 Corner schools.

ESPN needs to keep the ACC together. Sure, Clemson and Florida State want big money, but to break up the ACC Florida State and Clemson need 8 teams to join the rebellion. It is iffy now. Not all 15 teams would get picked up by the SEC or B1G. That creates a lot of uncertainty for the marginal teams. An increase in revenue over their current contract likely tips the balance back.

I have been saying what I think the <conferences> should do. It is strategy analysis, not prediction or really even advocacy.

What I <want> is Cal to be in a pod with our traditional California rivals, with the rest of the old PAC 8 a secondary desire. It looks pretty grim for that right now.

And if the ACC breaks up I do not see that helping Cal get into the B1G at all. There will be a feeding frenzy between the SEC and B1G for picking up the 15 ACC teams starting with Notre Dame, Clemson and the Florida schools. Who does the B1G leave behind to take Cal?

If the B1G and the SEC expand east, gobbling up the ACC and the PAC-10 does not get B-12 money, then maybe the 4 corners schools DO join the B-12. Cal could be left in a very bad position.

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

What increased revenue? What increased contract? Whose bidding on it? You just said not Fox. That leaves what, ESPN? ESPN already has a sweetheart deal for the ACC, why on earth would they want to give that up willingly? What do they get out of it?

The problem is networks are driving the show at this point and they want all of the best value teams in one place and they don't care to pay for the sub par performers from a dollar perspective. They don't want to have to pay (what they perceive) to be 30 million a year for Washington State games.

But what's best for the networks is NOT whats best for the long term health/value of the sport. What's best for the sport is inclusiveness, with the shot that any team in Div1 with the right coach / recruiting class can make it to the championships. Dwindle it down to just the high value teams and those teams will lose value. Washington State getting 30 million a year, the same as USC is good for the long term health of the sport. But its bad for USC (especially in the short term). And its bad for Fox/ESPN.

---

The ACC is trying to get enough members together to break up the conference. No conference, no GOR, no "great" deal for ESPN.

The increased value is East Coast teams playing games on the West Coast in the later time slots on Saturday night that matter to East Coast viewers so they will stay up and watch, when they wouldn't watch a matchup between two MWC teams. Increased viewership in open time slots is increased value, over and above what ESPN is currently paying the ACC.

That allows ESPN to give the PAC-10 members something at least in line with what the Big -12 is getting and get more money to the existing ACC members to head off the current insurrection. It gives ESPN valuable content to air AFTER the SEC has finished playing. It counters the B1G and Fox who would otherwise grab ACC and PAC-10 schools.

---

The teams that want to leave the ACC want B1G / SEC money. Big12 money isn't going to make them suddenly stop wanting to leave for B1G / SEC money. They are still going to try to leave, and it may even make it easier for them to do so.

Look, I don't like it either. There are a LOT of short sited decisions being made to maximize current contract values that will eventually kill the popularity of the sport. College football is as great / popular as it is due to its inclusion. The upsets, the uncertainty, the fact your local college team participates. These are what make college football better than, say, minor league baseball. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but instead of valuing that they are attempting to break it up and sell off only the most expensive parts.

The good news is for us is that the most likely path to Cal joining the B1G includes the ACC breaking their GoR. It just sucks to leave behind the Pac12, and even if we are included, I'll miss the Washington State / Oregon States of the world.

---

The PAC-10 is the one that needs to get to B-12 money at a minimum or risk losing the 4 Corner schools.

ESPN needs to keep the ACC together. Sure, Clemson and Florida State want big money, but to break up the ACC Florida State and Clemson need 8 teams to join the rebellion. It is iffy now. Not all 15 teams would get picked up by the SEC or B1G. That creates a lot of uncertainty for the marginal teams. An increase in revenue over their current contract likely tips the balance back.

I have been saying what I think the <conferences> should do. It is strategy analysis, not prediction or really even advocacy.

What I <want> is Cal to be in a pod with our traditional California rivals, with the rest of the old PAC 8 a secondary desire. It looks pretty grim for that right now.

And if the ACC breaks up I do not see that helping Cal get into the B1G at all. There will be a feeding frenzy between the SEC and B1G for picking up the 15 ACC teams starting with Notre Dame, Clemson and the Florida schools. Who does the B1G leave behind to take Cal?

If the B1G and the SEC expand east, gobbling up the ACC and the PAC-10 does not get B-12 money, then maybe the 4 corners schools DO join the B-12. Cal could be left in a very bad position.

---

If you expand beyond 16 teams (2 8 team divisions) the natural progression is to split into pods. We want a 6 team pod (Oregon / Washington / Cal / Stanford / USC). For there to be 4 6 team pods that would mean a 24 team B1G conference.

That would leave 4 teams from the ACC. The "Magnificent 7" (or 8 if you include Notre Dame) would likely be split between the SEC and the B1G.

Without the ACC teams we'd be looking at a 6 team pod in a 20 team conference which doesn't make much sense. If they felt that they absolutely HAD to have us, they could look at adding one other team and go with 3 7 team pods, but I don't see the B1G as being in any rush.

A somewhat informative articlcle from The Athletic:

https://theathletic.com/4529638/2023/05/18/college-football-realignment-acc-pac-12/?amp=1

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

I have been in favor of a Pac-#/ACC merger ever since USC and Southern Branch announced their defection. the B1G is not interested in us. They may take UO and UW and possibly Stanford but we are likely to be left out. And dreams of a Pac-B1G merger are just dreams.

I think the ACC is a better cultural fit and a coast-to-coast conference will work, but the Pac division of the new expanded/merged conference would have to add a few teams to balance the two divisions, maybe UNLV, Colorado State, SMU, New Mexico.

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearSD said:

---

philbert said:

---

ACC officials discussed releasing a statement in response to the situation with the 7. But...

“We’re not unified,” ACC source says. “We’re unified until someone offers a school more to go somewhere else. Everyone is going to grab it.”

From @ByPatForde - https://t.co/GM1OqeSBL4

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) May 17, 2023

---

Looks like all of the bitter ghouls hoping for conference destruction have turned their attention to the east coast this week.

---

The ACC is arguably in a worst spot than the PAC-12 because while for the latter things are pretty fluid and open the ACC is handcuffed by their grant of rights through 2036 and now that Clemson makes less money than Purdue there could be an ugly divorce up next because of the money involved.

---

It is why a PAC-12 and ACC quasi merger makes so much sense. The value created by having East Coast teams play on the West Coast in games the East Coast cares about in the East Coast evening time slots on ESPN is huge. It counters Fox and the B1G getting the LA schools. The increased TV contract keeps the ACC teams in and keeps the PAC -10 together. It is a compelling basketball league too. It creates a clear #3 conference, eclipsing the B-12 which would now be the SEC's focus for expansion. Eventually the LA schools might even want to come back. The coasts are where the population, money, media and best schools are.

---

I have been in favor of a Pac-#/ACC merger ever since USC and Southern Branch announced their defection. the B1G is not interested in us. They may take UO and UW and possibly Stanford but we are likely to be left out. And dreams of a Pac-B1G merger are just dreams.

I think the ACC is a better cultural fit and a coast-to-coast conference will work, but the Pac division of the new expanded/merged conference would have to add a few teams to balance the two divisions, maybe UNLV, Colorado State, SMU, New Mexico.

---

The B1G may ultimately not have an interest in Cal. But if the ACC breaks apart what will be left to merge with will not be worth a lot. The big programs like Clemson, FSU, UNC will all land closer to home either in the B1G or SEC or possibly even the Big 12.. A merging with Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest that do not interest the major conferences is not something TV will likely have a great deal of interest in.

I think for Cal the best bet is to hope the B1G is not expanding til 2030 and use these next several seasons to become a decent program and make bowls. Hoops needs to be good as well. Fans will need to watch the games. The University resides in a great market that at present does not watch or attend the games at strong levels. That will need to change. Winning is what will drive that change.

The B1G presidents like Cal. But TV is paying. They have to show the TV folks that there is an interest in the programs. Merging with the ACC now given their GOR makes little sense to the P12 members. They do not want to be tied into a GOR of that length. It would require a breaking of the GOR and if that happens several current members that have options will not want to be in a west coast conference. Particularly one that has duds like UNLV, New Mexico or Colorado St.

Cal IMO needs to do whatever it takes to get to the B1G. If that does not happen they better find a way to keep the current membership intact. If UW and UO leave and the B1G does not want Cal now or in 2030 the program is in deep peril.