HAHA. I edited my original post now. But I agree, let's do a foosball division also!LOUMFSG2 said:I think we'd have a real shot at being competitive in foosballferCALgm2 said:
I hope it's foosball + basketball (and nothing more).
And as I prepare a snarky retort, I discover that Cal indeed competed at bowling and won a national championship in 1979. Who says our brand isnt compelling?ferCALgm2 said:HAHA. I edited my original post now. But I agree, let's do a foosball division also!LOUMFSG2 said:I think we'd have a real shot at being competitive in foosballferCALgm2 said:
I hope it's foosball + basketball (and nothing more).
NWBear90 said:And as I prepare a snarky retort, I discover that Cal indeed competed at bowling and won a national championship in 1979. Who says our brand isnt compelling?ferCALgm2 said:HAHA. I edited my original post now. But I agree, let's do a foosball division also!LOUMFSG2 said:I think we'd have a real shot at being competitive in foosballferCALgm2 said:
I hope it's foosball + basketball (and nothing more).
I recall a story of an awkward moment at one of Cal's practice sessions at Albany Bowl, where a Bear bowling fan happened to be there that day and just happened to be looking at some polaroids of star bowler Carl Tsukahara and then looked up to see Carl seeing him look at his photo.bearsandgiants said:NWBear90 said:And as I prepare a snarky retort, I discover that Cal indeed competed at bowling and won a national championship in 1979. Who says our brand isnt compelling?ferCALgm2 said:HAHA. I edited my original post now. But I agree, let's do a foosball division also!LOUMFSG2 said:I think we'd have a real shot at being competitive in foosballferCALgm2 said:
I hope it's foosball + basketball (and nothing more).
The origin of "roll on you bears."
https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
its also a negotiation. if there are 2-3 swing votes, it depends on what they want. Is it a bit more money? Or is it "we're not sure we want to do this at all"berserkeley said:kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
Not a great sign. That would mean we cannot lose any more votes. One might think ND would vote yes simply to preserve their annual game against Stanford as a P5 game.
Fire Starkey said:its also a negotiation. if there are 2-3 swing votes, it depends on what they want. Is it a bit more money? Or is it "we're not sure we want to do this at all"berserkeley said:kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
Not a great sign. That would mean we cannot lose any more votes. One might think ND would vote yes simply to preserve their annual game against Stanford as a P5 game.
Interesting that UNC was a no...assuming this post is true
Fire Starkey said:its also a negotiation. if there are 2-3 swing votes, it depends on what they want. Is it a bit more money? Or is it "we're not sure we want to do this at all"berserkeley said:kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
Not a great sign. That would mean we cannot lose any more votes. One might think ND would vote yes simply to preserve their annual game against Stanford as a P5 game.
Interesting that UNC was a no...assuming this post is true
This source could be 'a guy' from the local South Carolina Boston Market for all we know....berserkeley said:kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
Not a great sign. That would mean we cannot lose any more votes. One might think ND would vote yes simply to preserve their annual game against Stanford as a P5 game.
Doubt Miami would vote yes eitherberserkeley said:kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
Not a great sign. That would mean we cannot lose any more votes. One might think ND would vote yes simply to preserve their annual game against Stanford as a P5 game.
Quote:
Interesting that UNC was a no...assuming this post is true
RIP ASUC Fundergroundsosheezy said:I recall a story of an awkward moment at one of Cal's practice sessions at Albany Bowl, where a Bear bowling fan happened to be there that day and just happened to be looking at some polaroids of star bowler Carl Tsukahara and then looked up to see Carl seeing him look at his photo.bearsandgiants said:NWBear90 said:And as I prepare a snarky retort, I discover that Cal indeed competed at bowling and won a national championship in 1979. Who says our brand isnt compelling?ferCALgm2 said:HAHA. I edited my original post now. But I agree, let's do a foosball division also!LOUMFSG2 said:I think we'd have a real shot at being competitive in foosballferCALgm2 said:
I hope it's foosball + basketball (and nothing more).
The origin of "roll on you bears."
I specifically said "not sure they do."DoubtfulBear said:Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?BearGoggles said:
Lots of moving pieces and here are some random thoughts:
I don't believe that the B1G is "not interested" in expansion. They will do exactly what they did with UW/UO - see what Cal and Furd are offered and then decide if they want to match or beat it. There is no reason for B1G to negotiate at this point since they know Cal/Furd prefer B1G (or should). At the right price, I have no doubt B1G want Cal/Furd to balance travel, etc. At the right price.
Re ACC, I think there's a decent match for Cal there albeit travel will suck. Ideal situation would be to only have major sports in the ACC and have the rest play in other conferences. I assume FSU/Clemson would oppose any expansion - if for no other reason then they want the ACC to go away. I wonder what happens if ACC admits Cal/Furd/SMU (?) over the objections of FSU/Clemson? Do FSU/Clemson use that to take a position on the grant of rights and leave the league (i.e., litigation mode)?
At the end of the day, its comes down to the networks and specifically ESPN. Does ESPN want Clemson/FSU in the SEC (not sure they do). If they do, then ESPN can modify the ACC GOR to make that happen - for example throw additional $$ in the deal and/or shorten the term. Hypothetically, what if ESPN offered the ACC more annual money per team in exchange for letting FSU/Clemson go to the SEC? Who says no?
It's all about eyeballs. If for example, espn believes that Clemson v SEC teams gets more viewers than Clemson v ACC teams, then both espn and Clemson can make more money if Clemson moves.BearGoggles said:I specifically said "not sure they do."DoubtfulBear said:Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?BearGoggles said:
Lots of moving pieces and here are some random thoughts:
I don't believe that the B1G is "not interested" in expansion. They will do exactly what they did with UW/UO - see what Cal and Furd are offered and then decide if they want to match or beat it. There is no reason for B1G to negotiate at this point since they know Cal/Furd prefer B1G (or should). At the right price, I have no doubt B1G want Cal/Furd to balance travel, etc. At the right price.
Re ACC, I think there's a decent match for Cal there albeit travel will suck. Ideal situation would be to only have major sports in the ACC and have the rest play in other conferences. I assume FSU/Clemson would oppose any expansion - if for no other reason then they want the ACC to go away. I wonder what happens if ACC admits Cal/Furd/SMU (?) over the objections of FSU/Clemson? Do FSU/Clemson use that to take a position on the grant of rights and leave the league (i.e., litigation mode)?
At the end of the day, its comes down to the networks and specifically ESPN. Does ESPN want Clemson/FSU in the SEC (not sure they do). If they do, then ESPN can modify the ACC GOR to make that happen - for example throw additional $$ in the deal and/or shorten the term. Hypothetically, what if ESPN offered the ACC more annual money per team in exchange for letting FSU/Clemson go to the SEC? Who says no?
But to some extent, you kind of answered your own question. To keep those two schools (one of which is elite) under the ESPN umbrella as opposed to having them bolt for B1G or other non-espn options. Plus you get better matchups in the SEC for those two schools and added SEC content which brings in a premium.
Another reason to do it is to prevent the ACC from blowing up, which is a possibility that has been discussed. Not a high likelihood, but it is an unhappy partnership.
The obvious question is to what extent you're devaluing the ACC from a broadcast rights/revenue perspective by allowing the move. At least theoretically, some of that loss is offset by the addition of games that are in the late night window - something ESPN is clearly after - and games in new media markets (Texas/CA if SMU is involved).
kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
Quote:
Stanford expects some kind of resolution by the end of the week, sources told ESPN.
Big Dog said:It's all about eyeballs. If for example, espn believes that Clemson v SEC teams gets more viewers than Clemson v ACC teams, then both espn and Clemson can make more money if Clemson moves.BearGoggles said:I specifically said "not sure they do."DoubtfulBear said:Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?BearGoggles said:
Lots of moving pieces and here are some random thoughts:
I don't believe that the B1G is "not interested" in expansion. They will do exactly what they did with UW/UO - see what Cal and Furd are offered and then decide if they want to match or beat it. There is no reason for B1G to negotiate at this point since they know Cal/Furd prefer B1G (or should). At the right price, I have no doubt B1G want Cal/Furd to balance travel, etc. At the right price.
Re ACC, I think there's a decent match for Cal there albeit travel will suck. Ideal situation would be to only have major sports in the ACC and have the rest play in other conferences. I assume FSU/Clemson would oppose any expansion - if for no other reason then they want the ACC to go away. I wonder what happens if ACC admits Cal/Furd/SMU (?) over the objections of FSU/Clemson? Do FSU/Clemson use that to take a position on the grant of rights and leave the league (i.e., litigation mode)?
At the end of the day, its comes down to the networks and specifically ESPN. Does ESPN want Clemson/FSU in the SEC (not sure they do). If they do, then ESPN can modify the ACC GOR to make that happen - for example throw additional $$ in the deal and/or shorten the term. Hypothetically, what if ESPN offered the ACC more annual money per team in exchange for letting FSU/Clemson go to the SEC? Who says no?
But to some extent, you kind of answered your own question. To keep those two schools (one of which is elite) under the ESPN umbrella as opposed to having them bolt for B1G or other non-espn options. Plus you get better matchups in the SEC for those two schools and added SEC content which brings in a premium.
Another reason to do it is to prevent the ACC from blowing up, which is a possibility that has been discussed. Not a high likelihood, but it is an unhappy partnership.
The obvious question is to what extent you're devaluing the ACC from a broadcast rights/revenue perspective by allowing the move. At least theoretically, some of that loss is offset by the addition of games that are in the late night window - something ESPN is clearly after - and games in new media markets (Texas/CA if SMU is involved).
It that were true, FSU would not be belly-aching to get out. espn woudl have taken them aside and said cool-it, bcos we will not revise teh GOR so you can move. Yes, the playoffs are important, but so is every Saturday afternoon game. Dabo vs. Georgia will draw a lot more eyeballs than Dabo vs. Basketball school (Mack Brown).golden sloth said:Big Dog said:It's all about eyeballs. If for example, espn believes that Clemson v SEC teams gets more viewers than Clemson v ACC teams, then both espn and Clemson can make more money if Clemson moves.BearGoggles said:I specifically said "not sure they do."DoubtfulBear said:Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?BearGoggles said:
Lots of moving pieces and here are some random thoughts:
I don't believe that the B1G is "not interested" in expansion. They will do exactly what they did with UW/UO - see what Cal and Furd are offered and then decide if they want to match or beat it. There is no reason for B1G to negotiate at this point since they know Cal/Furd prefer B1G (or should). At the right price, I have no doubt B1G want Cal/Furd to balance travel, etc. At the right price.
Re ACC, I think there's a decent match for Cal there albeit travel will suck. Ideal situation would be to only have major sports in the ACC and have the rest play in other conferences. I assume FSU/Clemson would oppose any expansion - if for no other reason then they want the ACC to go away. I wonder what happens if ACC admits Cal/Furd/SMU (?) over the objections of FSU/Clemson? Do FSU/Clemson use that to take a position on the grant of rights and leave the league (i.e., litigation mode)?
At the end of the day, its comes down to the networks and specifically ESPN. Does ESPN want Clemson/FSU in the SEC (not sure they do). If they do, then ESPN can modify the ACC GOR to make that happen - for example throw additional $$ in the deal and/or shorten the term. Hypothetically, what if ESPN offered the ACC more annual money per team in exchange for letting FSU/Clemson go to the SEC? Who says no?
But to some extent, you kind of answered your own question. To keep those two schools (one of which is elite) under the ESPN umbrella as opposed to having them bolt for B1G or other non-espn options. Plus you get better matchups in the SEC for those two schools and added SEC content which brings in a premium.
Another reason to do it is to prevent the ACC from blowing up, which is a possibility that has been discussed. Not a high likelihood, but it is an unhappy partnership.
The obvious question is to what extent you're devaluing the ACC from a broadcast rights/revenue perspective by allowing the move. At least theoretically, some of that loss is offset by the addition of games that are in the late night window - something ESPN is clearly after - and games in new media markets (Texas/CA if SMU is involved).
I also believe ESPN wants to protect the College football playoffs, and a key component of interesting, highly rated playoff games are the pairing of two powerhouses with amazing records from different conferences. This could motivate ESPN to try and keep Clemson, FSU or Miami in the ACC (even if only one of them has been good). The conference is weaker than the SEC, so they'd have a better record, and they get a highly rated team from a different conference.
I believe the all-SEC title games were some of the lowest rated in the playoff era.
No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
It's been widely reported that FSU is in talks with JP Morgan Chase about raising the capital for the exit fee. So there clearly is a way.Big Dog said:No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
SMU being vetted is to get additional revenue to distribute. Voting Cal and Stanford in is not the concern. Money is the concern. SMU forgoing distributions for 5 seasons gives the schools the money to cover travel and put some in their wallets as well.Vegas Bear said:kal kommie said:
Post from a Clemson board:https://forums.theclemsoninsider.com/showthread.php?t=160174Quote:
- First the AD's did meet today to discuss the possibility of adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
- We were told the President's meeting was underway this afternoon
- It will take 12 teams to approve. Notre Dame is included in the voting.
- Clemson, North Carolina and Florida State were all against the proposal in the AD meeting. We expect the Presidents/Chancellors to be in agreement for those three with the ADs.
- So that means all of the other schools would need to vote yes for the conference to add the two schools. We have been told a few schools appeared to be undecided following the AD meeting. There was a majority of the conference in favor of the move.
- There is language in the ACC's contract that would allow for increased revenue from ESPN if the league can show adding the two teams would add value.
- This would not impact the Grant of Rights from what we were told by a source
- As we have previously reported Clemson has been doing everything they can to make sure they take care of Clemson for the long term. Those conversations have been active and we believe they continue at this time.
I heard the same from a guy I know who works in media for an ACC school. He said UVA and VaTech are on the fence. NC State is unknown. The rest of the votes are there. Could happen tomorrow
SoFlaBear said:It's been widely reported that FSU is in talks with JP Morgan Chase about raising the capital for the exit fee. So there clearly is a way.Big Dog said:No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
Like it or not, they get viewers and cable subscribers which is all that matters for media rights valuation. Meanwhile we've spent our entire existence boasting about our unlimited potential with Bay Area viewers with nothing tangible to show for itAnarchistbear said:SoFlaBear said:It's been widely reported that FSU is in talks with JP Morgan Chase about raising the capital for the exit fee. So there clearly is a way.Big Dog said:No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.
Historically speaking - since 1936 - they are considered the 13th most successful football program in terms of polling position. So - they have the pedigree, notwithstanding their recent mediocrity.Anarchistbear said:SoFlaBear said:It's been widely reported that FSU is in talks with JP Morgan Chase about raising the capital for the exit fee. So there clearly is a way.Big Dog said:No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.
Anarchistbear said:SoFlaBear said:It's been widely reported that FSU is in talks with JP Morgan Chase about raising the capital for the exit fee. So there clearly is a way.Big Dog said:No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.
philly1121 said:
UCLA is 18th. SC is 6th.
https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-football-rankings-ap-top-25s-greatest-programs-of-all-time-207379513/#2139230
DoubtfulBear said:Like it or not, they get viewers and cable subscribers which is all that matters for media rights valuation. Meanwhile we've spent our entire existence boasting about our unlimited potential with Bay Area viewers with nothing tangible to show for itAnarchistbear said:SoFlaBear said:It's been widely reported that FSU is in talks with JP Morgan Chase about raising the capital for the exit fee. So there clearly is a way.Big Dog said:No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.
And it would potentially open up more exposure. Even a 1 PM Pacific start is 4 PM back east. A 4 PM Pacific start is a 7 PM prime time game, and a 7PM pacific start is a late night slot. And that expanded exposure potential also works for Basketball.sycasey said:DoubtfulBear said:Like it or not, they get viewers and cable subscribers which is all that matters for media rights valuation. Meanwhile we've spent our entire existence boasting about our unlimited potential with Bay Area viewers with nothing tangible to show for itAnarchistbear said:SoFlaBear said:It's been widely reported that FSU is in talks with JP Morgan Chase about raising the capital for the exit fee. So there clearly is a way.Big Dog said:No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.Anarchistbear said:
Why would Clemson and FSU join the SEC where they would have to beat Georgia and Alabama to get into a championship?
The BIG would love to have these two because it would establish their first beach head in the southeast an area where they have no teams and where midwesterners go to play golf and die.
Plus, addition of a southern partner, Clemson, wouid actually begin to make them a real power football conference instead of an aging ugly bridesmaid.
The Big Ten has been in two college playoff championships and won 1 . The SEC and Clemson have won 8 and been in 14 finals.
FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.
Though the funny thing is that even with our mediocre TV ratings in the Pac, we would still be above average in the ACC. That's probably why the interest.
