sycasey said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.

---

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.

---

FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.

---

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 it

---

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.

---

Yea the bottom half of ACC is very much like B12 without OUT, not desirable for the future of P2/3

sycasey said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.

---

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.

---

FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.

---

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 it

---

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.

---

For reference, the ACC media ratings averages from 2015 - 2019:
1. Notre dame - 3.61 mill
2. Clemson - 2.67 mill
3. FSU - 2.23 mill
4. Miami - 1.5 mill
5. Vtech - 1.26 mill
6. Louisville - 1.22 mill
7. Pitt - 781k
8. North Carolina - 749k
9. Cal - 730k
10. NCST - 703k
11. Syracuse - 694k
12. Georgia tech - 615k
13. Virginia - 592k
14. Duke - 410k
15. BC - 403k
16. Wake Forest -398k

According to this medium article, which has a questionable methodology.

Which college football programs bring in the most TV viewers? https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50

philly1121 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Nebraska is at 8, Penn Srate at 9. This rating is like a cruise ship full of aging rock bands playing hits from the 60's. I will bet that Florida State, Nebraska, Penn State and Norte Dame( #5) will not win a championship in the next 10 years

lol good one. yeah, I agree. But you think those teams are going to get left out of a breakaway league?

philly1121 said:

---

lol good one. yeah, I agree. But you think those teams are going to get left out of a breakaway league?

---

No, they'd likely be in at a number of 32. But that's the point; not everyone is going to go 10-1 so you need some wins.

Interestingly if the break away league happens there would be a goodly number of leftovers that could align regionally and nationally with enough $ and interest to probably hack it. In true American fashion we could move from agglomeration then back again.

SoFlaBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.

---

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.

---

good point, except the likelihood of anything happened with that is near zero. The FSU Athletic department is a department of the University and as such, is a non-profit. Raising capital as a non-profit is extremely difficult from a legal and tax perspective. (In my former life as a CFO of a non-profit we went down that path.).

Without state org ramifications, they will soon realize that the only thing that they JPM could do is offer FSU an unsecured loan large enough for FSU to buyout its GOR. And JPM is not in the business of loaning hundreds of millions unsecured. OTOH, I could be wrong and FSU has a sugar-daddy like Uncle Phil who could co-sign.

Big Dog said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

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?

---

Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?

---

I specifically said "not sure they do."

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'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.

---

Yes - thank you for making one of my points in far fewer words.

BearGoggles said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

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?

---

Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?

---

I specifically said "not sure they do."

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'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.

---

Yes - thank you for making one of my points in far fewer words.

---

sorry, I wasn't trying to correct you, but just support your post.

Big Dog said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

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?

---

Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?

---

I specifically said "not sure they do."

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'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.

---

Yes - thank you for making one of my points in far fewer words.

---

sorry, I wasn't trying to correct you, but just support your post.

---

Of course - brevity may not be my strong suit.

BearGoggles said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

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?

---

Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?

---

I specifically said "not sure they do."

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'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.

---

Yes - thank you for making one of my points in far fewer words.

---

Since ESPN is invested in both the ACC and the SEC, I have a hard time believing that it is a value add to dilute the ACC and make it easier for power teams to get further knock down during regular season by having to play each other. Seems like there is sufficient competition among the teams in the SEC that it would be a net negative for ESPN.

Overall, it seems like Fox wanted to kill Pac-12 rather than allow a potential existential threat like Apple TV to get a hold on college football. They knew that UO and UW leaving would kill the Pac-12 after USC and UCLA left and that Apple TV's entry would not succeed with the remaining team. No other reason to push so hard for additional payment for UO and UW into the Big 10 this late in the game instead of paying up for Pac-12.

Anarchistbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Nebraska is at 8, Penn Srate at 9. This rating is like a cruise ship full of aging rock bands playing hits from the 60's. I will bet that Florida State, Nebraska, Penn State and Norte Dame( #5) will not win a championship in the next 10 years

---

Penn State has finished in the Top 10 4 times ovet the last decade.
Florida State 3 times in the Top 10 (one more at #11) with 1 national championship
Notre Dame 3 times in the Top 10 and one more at #12
Nebraska is the only one on the outside

They may not win a title, but they're taking a lot of the CFP bids.

Yeah, that's really my point. History is important, but media exposure even moreso. Those top 25 teams - more often then not, they drive tv ratings.

Alabama, tOSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, SC, Texas, Penn State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tenn, LSU, Georgia, Clemson, FSU, Auburn, Miami, Florida, MSU, Iowa, UCLA, Wisconsin, UW, Arkansas, Iowa, Ole Miss. Are there 9 more teams that have the pedigree/resources or media pull that can handle these teams? ESPN/s preseason polling for 2023 - there are only 7 teams that are not listed above in the top 25 - UNC, Baylor, OSU, Texas Tech, TCU, Oregon and Utah. So - perhaps you're right - 32 teams. That's pretty much the creme de la creme of college football.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.

---

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.

---

FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.

---

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 it

---

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.

---

Yea the bottom half of ACC is very much like B12 without OUT, not desirable for the future of P2/3

---

Cal needs to survive the next few years to start thriving. When we fire Knowlton and hire a good, competent, full-time AD who loves Cal and Wilcox either becomes a winning coach or we replace him, we can become THE sports brand for the East Bay, keep the transcendent talent home, and be well positioned for the next round of conference realignment.

If we don't get into the B1G, PAC-4/ACC is a good solution.

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

I think Notre Dame respect's what Cal and Stanford are as great universities and sports programs who have tried to do things the right way.

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

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.

---

No way espn allows Fox (aka BiG) to take Clemson or FSU. Just no way.

---

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.

---

FSU is funny. They are a beta who think they are a storied alpha and be paid like an alpha for their mediocrity.

---

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 it

---

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.

---

Yea the bottom half of ACC is very much like B12 without OUT, not desirable for the future of P2/3

---

Cal needs to survive the next few years to start thriving. When we fire Knowlton and hire a good, competent, full-time AD who loves Cal and Wilcox either becomes a winning coach or we replace him, we can become THE sports brand for the East Bay, keep the transcendent talent home, and be well positioned for the next round of conference realignment.

If we don't get into the B1G, PAC-4/ACC is a good solution.

---

you lost me at good, competent AD

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

Pushing for Stanford I assume

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

Pushing for Stanford I assume

---

It says what it says. I'm sure Stanford is their bestest buddy in this, but they probably like Cal too.

At this point I'm a bit surprised that the B1G hasn't tried to swoop in and pry Cal & Stanford away from the ACC. Giving a competitor conference/network a foothold in California and further convincing Notre Dame to stay put is not in their interests, and it probably wouldn't take a huge offer to get the Bay Area schools. I suppose there is still time.

---

We're in such a desperate position, the BIG could offer almost anything and we would most likely take it. But merger rumors with the ACC give us leverage.

nikeykid said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

I think Notre Dame respect's what Cal and Stanford are as great universities and sports programs who have tried to do things the right way.

---

i will watch rudy 50 times straight if they get us into the ACC.

---

nikeykid said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

I think Notre Dame respect's what Cal and Stanford are as great universities and sports programs who have tried to do things the right way.

---

i will watch rudy 50 times straight if they get us into the ACC.

---

That was funny. I will do the same, and even watch some other movies with Sean Austin as an added sign of appreciation.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

Pushing for Stanford I assume

---

It says what it says. I'm sure Stanford is their bestest buddy in this, but they probably like Cal too.

At this point I'm a bit surprised that the B1G hasn't tried to swoop in and pry Cal & Stanford away from the ACC. Giving a competitor conference/network a foothold in California and further convincing Notre Dame to stay put is not in their interests, and it probably wouldn't take a huge offer to get the Bay Area schools. I suppose there is still time.

---

It's not up to B1G. It's up to Fox, and it seems like they are passing.

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

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?

---

Why would ESPN want to pay more to move FSU and Clemson from one conference they own to another conference they own?

---

I specifically said "not sure they do."

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'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.

---

Yes - thank you for making one of my points in far fewer words.

---

Since ESPN is invested in both the ACC and the SEC, I have a hard time believing that it is a value add to dilute the ACC and make it easier for power teams to get further knock down during regular season by having to play each other. Seems like there is sufficient competition among the teams in the SEC that it would be a net negative for ESPN.

Overall, it seems like Fox wanted to kill Pac-12 rather than allow a potential existential threat like Apple TV to get a hold on college football. They knew that UO and UW leaving would kill the Pac-12 after USC and UCLA left and that Apple TV's entry would not succeed with the remaining team. No other reason to push so hard for additional payment for UO and UW into the Big 10 this late in the game instead of paying up for Pac-12.

---

Absolutely they want more viewere for both conferences. If Clemson drops 2 games early in the SEC they are.far less valuable than continuing undefeated through the ACC championship, the semi final and final which not only adds Clemson eyes but orher ACC and conference eyes
who gather under the flag against the SEC. This is why Clemson is so important to the ACc. The rest aren't very good.

Big Dog said:

---

SoFlaBear said:

---

I think Notre Dame respect's what Cal and Stanford are as great universities and sports programs who have tried to do things the right way.

---

and just think, the some of the Pac presidents would have voted No on adding a religious school such as ND to our conference.....

---

They think we have more in common with the Fresno States of the world?

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

Pushing for Stanford I assume

---

It says what it says. I'm sure Stanford is their bestest buddy in this, but they probably like Cal too.

At this point I'm a bit surprised that the B1G hasn't tried to swoop in and pry Cal & Stanford away from the ACC. Giving a competitor conference/network a foothold in California and further convincing Notre Dame to stay put is not in their interests, and it probably wouldn't take a huge offer to get the Bay Area schools. I suppose there is still time.

---

It's not up to B1G. It's up to Fox, and it seems like they are passing.

---

Well, I'd also say that I'm surprised if FOX doesn't do something to prevent ESPN getting access to these markets and keeping the ACC contract alive for a longer period of time. But all this has materialized fairly quickly this week, so we may see more moves.

Notre Dame under Brian Kelly was a hard no for doing things the right way. Negligence, sexual assault, academic cheating

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/notre-dame-is-running-out-of-reasons-to-keep-brian-kelly-after-latest-indiscretion/amp/

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

I wouldn't say unexpected. Yesterday I posted that Notre Dame would push for expansion because they need the Stanford game to be a P5 matchup. ND gets hurt if Stanford drops to Independent or MWC status.

dimitrig said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

Pushing for Stanford I assume

---

Who was it that stated so confidently that Notre Dame had zero interest in us?

berserkeley said:

---

nikeykid said:

---

Notre Dame, an ACC member in all sports but football, is "pushing hard" for ACC to add Stanford & Cal, @LarryWilliamsTI reports

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) August 9, 2023

an unexpected friend in Notre Dame!

---

I wouldn't say unexpected. Yesterday I posted that Notre Dame would push for expansion because they need the Stanford game to be a P5 matchup. ND gets hurt if Stanford drops to Independent or MWC status.

---

I wonder if Notre Dame would be willing to upgrade their deal with the ACC from 5 games a year to 6 with the 6th being Stanford. Getting an extra Notre dame game every other year (because the ACC would only have rights to Stanford's home games), would definitely increase the value of the TV contract.

The president of Notre Dame, Fr. John Jenkins, is a GTU grad, class of 88. I have crossed path with him a few times on Euclid as I lived as an undergrad on Northside 2 blocks from the GTU campus.

Quote:

---

Early life and career

Jenkins was born and raised in Omaha, Nebraska, and attended Creighton Preparatory School. In high school, he was captain of the swim team and prom king.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I._Jenkins#cite_note-Dame-3][3][/url] Jenkins earned bachelor's and master's degrees in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame in 1976 and 1978, respectively, and was ordained a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross in the Basilica of the Sacred Heart on campus in 1983. While earning master's and doctoral degrees in philosophy from Oxford University in 1987 and 1989, respectively, he also taught in Notre Dame's London Undergraduate Program. He earned a master of divinity degree and licentiate in sacred theology from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley in 1988.

---

Jack Swarbrick, ND's athletic director is a Furd law school grad. Also, this:

Quote:

---

Swarbrick is married to Kimberly, and they have four children: Kate, Connor, Cal, and Christopher.

---

There's your ND Cal/Furd connection!

Cal88 said:

---

The president of Notre Dame, Fr. John Jenkins, is a GTU grad, class of 88. I have crossed path with him a few times on Euclid as I lived as an undergrad on Northside 2 blocks from the GTU campus.

Quote:

---

Early life and career

Jenkins was born and raised in Omaha, Nebraska, and attended Creighton Preparatory School. In high school, he was captain of the swim team and prom king.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_I._Jenkins#cite_note-Dame-3][3][/url] Jenkins earned bachelor's and master's degrees in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame in 1976 and 1978, respectively, and was ordained a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross in the Basilica of the Sacred Heart on campus in 1983. While earning master's and doctoral degrees in philosophy from Oxford University in 1987 and 1989, respectively, he also taught in Notre Dame's London Undergraduate Program. He earned a master of divinity degree and licentiate in sacred theology from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley in 1988.

---

Jack Swarbrick, ND's athletic director is a Furd law school grad. Also, this:

Quote:

---

Swarbrick is married to Kimberly, and they have four children: Kate, Connor, Cal, and Christopher.

---

There's your ND Cal/Furd connection!

---

Wow!! Great information!!