The latest on Conference Realignment and Cal - Saturday the 19th

198,881 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
RobertHedrock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:41p, 8/24/23
I'm an alum of a Big Ten school; when the USC/UCLA move was announced I hoped that Washington, Stanford, and Cal would be invited to the conference; in my view they would all be fabulous additions. I concede that the prospect of an invitation to the Cardinals and Bears now looks dim, but the Big Ten has been quiet about the PAC additions prior to the invitations (e.g., about 12 hours between USC/UCLA public information/acceptance, and a day or two for the northwest pair), so I've not yet completely despaired.

The Bay Area schools would not be dilutive to the current members if they would accept a reduced share for the current contract. The two schools would add nine home games every year to the conference; the 27 annual "Pacific" conference games (plus the roughly dozen home non-conference contests) would provide a solid basis for "Big Ten After Dark" programming; surely Apple/ESPN/FOX/BTN would consider that worth $30M/year, given that many of the games could involve central time zone teams that generate decent ratings (e.g., Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin). The prime time every-other-year Stanford-Notre Dame game (if it is continued) itself must have a value of around $10M.

Notre Dame and the ACC schools, despite the endless speculation, are not going anywhere until a few years prior to 2036 (except perhaps Florida State and Clemson to the SEC, facilitated by ESPN). I don't subscribe to the theory that the Big Ten is currently holding "two spots" for southern schools.

A couple of questions for the posters on this board (I have no idea as to the answers): Will the four PAC/Big Ten schools (which don't have a vote) be pushing the Big Ten presidents to add Stanford and Cal? Would Stanford and Cal agree to $15M/year for the first six years (full share in the next media contract), with a substantial fraction of their home games starting at 7:30 local time, with some or perhaps most on a streaming platform?

The only concern that I would have as a Big Ten president is whether Stanford and Cal would rise to the occasion and be a financial asset to the next media deal.
Reply Quote
7
BearHunter
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HateRed • 6:42p, 8/24/23
HateRed said:
Who cares???? The PAC-12 has two of the top four universities in the world!

Cal and what's the other one?
Reply Quote
7
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:46p, 8/24/23
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.
Reply Quote
Go!Bears
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 6:57p, 8/24/23
Furd, SMU (travel), UVA "best public" battle
Reply Quote
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RobertHedrock • 7:03p, 8/24/23
RobertHedrock said:
I'm an alum of a Big Ten school; when the USC/UCLA move was announced I hoped that Washington, Stanford, and Cal would be invited to the conference; in my view they would all be fabulous additions. I concede that the prospect of an invitation to the Cardinals and Bears now looks dim, but the Big Ten has been quiet about the PAC additions prior to the invitations (e.g., about 12 hours between USC/UCLA public information/acceptance, and a day or two for the northwest pair), so I've not yet completely despaired.

The Bay Area schools would not be dilutive to the current members if they would accept a reduced share for the current contract. The two schools would add nine home games every year to the conference; the 27 annual "Pacific" conference games (plus the roughly dozen home non-conference contests) would provide a solid basis for "Big Ten After Dark" programming; surely Apple/ESPN/FOX/BTN would consider that worth $30M/year, given that many of the games could involve central time zone teams that generate decent ratings (e.g., Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin). The prime time every-other-year Stanford-Notre Dame game (if it is continued) itself must have a value of around $10M.

Notre Dame and the ACC schools, despite the endless speculation, are not going anywhere until a few years prior to 2036 (except perhaps Florida State and Clemson to the SEC, facilitated by ESPN). I don't subscribe to the theory that the Big Ten is currently holding "two spots" for southern schools.

A couple of questions for the posters on this board (I have no idea as to the answers): Will the four PAC/Big Ten schools (which don't have a vote) be pushing the Big Ten presidents to add Stanford and Cal? Would Stanford and Cal agree to $15M/year for the first six years (full share in the next media contract), with a substantial fraction of their home games starting at 7:30 local time, with some or perhaps most on a streaming platform?

The only concern that I would have as a Big Ten president is whether Stanford and Cal would rise to the occasion and be a financial asset to the next media deal.


The advantage of having 6 teams on the West Coast would be you could have a 7:30 Pacific start every week with every West Coast team only playing 1/3 of their home games at that time. 9 games split up among 6 teams. Maybe lean on UCLA, USC and Stanford for two each because they have the warmer evening weather. The rest could be a mix of traditional 1:00 pm kickoffs and late afternoon kickoffs.

We don't know what the ACC offer will be. Reports are we would start low and ramp up to full payment "by the end of the contract" (ie not until 2036). If so, what you are suggesting the B1G might pay would appear to beat that assuming the new contract in 6 years is for the same or more.

Any rumors Cal Stanford are even being considered?

Reply Quote
2 edits
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 7:08p, 8/24/23
golden sloth said:
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.


They probably throw Louisville in there for the same reason. The 4 furthest west schools without other long-standing rivalries.
Reply Quote
JRL.02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:12p, 8/24/23
In basketball… lol… stanford SMU cal all will play home and home if I had to guess. Likely Louisville as well. Just to cut down on the travel as much as possible.
Reply Quote
berserkeley
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:24p, 8/24/23
I have to imagine Louisville would be incredibly upset if their 3 protected rivals were Cal, Stanford, and SMU. Like change their vote to "no" upset.

I would bet that Cal, Stanford, and SMU are all protected rivals and if the ACC decides they should have 3 protected rivals each, then they each get a different, random ACC team.
Reply Quote
2
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 7:29p, 8/24/23
golden sloth said:
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.
I assume that 2024 ACC football pairings have already been made and would have to be adjusted on the fly. Something like this: Cal, Stanford, and SMU all play each other. Each then needs six more conference games. Using our Bears as an example, find an already scheduled ACC matchup of two teams who are not protected rivals, eg Syracuse/Georgia Tech. Replace the Cuse/GT matchup with Cal vs Cuse and Cal vs GT. Do that with two more already scheduled matchups, and Cal would have their 8 conference games.

Reply Quote
1
RobertHedrock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 7:38p, 8/24/23
calumnus said:
RobertHedrock said:
I'm an alum of a Big Ten school; when the USC/UCLA move was announced I hoped that Washington, Stanford, and Cal would be invited to the conference; in my view they would all be fabulous additions. I concede that the prospect of an invitation to the Cardinals and Bears now looks dim, but the Big Ten has been quiet about the PAC additions prior to the invitations (e.g., about 12 hours between USC/UCLA public information/acceptance, and a day or two for the northwest pair), so I've not yet completely despaired.

The Bay Area schools would not be dilutive to the current members if they would accept a reduced share for the current contract. The two schools would add nine home games every year to the conference; the 27 annual "Pacific" conference games (plus the roughly dozen home non-conference contests) would provide a solid basis for "Big Ten After Dark" programming; surely Apple/ESPN/FOX/BTN would consider that worth $30M/year, given that many of the games could involve central time zone teams that generate decent ratings (e.g., Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin). The prime time every-other-year Stanford-Notre Dame game (if it is continued) itself must have a value of around $10M.

Notre Dame and the ACC schools, despite the endless speculation, are not going anywhere until a few years prior to 2036 (except perhaps Florida State and Clemson to the SEC, facilitated by ESPN). I don't subscribe to the theory that the Big Ten is currently holding "two spots" for southern schools.

A couple of questions for the posters on this board (I have no idea as to the answers): Will the four PAC/Big Ten schools (which don't have a vote) be pushing the Big Ten presidents to add Stanford and Cal? Would Stanford and Cal agree to $15M/year for the first six years (full share in the next media contract), with a substantial fraction of their home games starting at 7:30 local time, with some or perhaps most on a streaming platform?

The only concern that I would have as a Big Ten president is whether Stanford and Cal would rise to the occasion and be a financial asset to the next media deal.


The advantage of having 6 teams on the West Coast would be you could have a 7:30 Pacific start every week with every West Coast team only playing 1/3 of their home games at that time. 9 games split up among 6 teams. Maybe lean on UCLA, USC and Stanford for two each because they have the warmer evening weather. The rest could be a mix of traditional 1:00 pm kickoffs and late afternoon kickoffs.

We don't know what the ACC offer will be. Reports are we would start low and ramp up to full payment "by the end of the contract" (ie not until 2036). If so, what you are suggesting the B1G might pay would appear to beat that assuming the new contract in 6 years is for the same or more.

Any rumors Cal Stanford are even being considered?

I am unaware of any such rumors, but then the Big Ten is famously tight-lipped on these matters. I just find it difficult to believe that the Big Ten presidents are not seriously investigating ways to add two elite academic universities, a large market, additional broadcast slots, and (for FOX) shut ESPN out of the west coast for unbelievable bargain-basement prices for six years. (But then I was convinced that they would never invite Oregon, so my insights on this matter are suspect!)
Reply Quote
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearSD • 7:39p, 8/24/23
BearSD said:
golden sloth said:
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.
I assume that 2024 ACC football pairings have already been made and would have to be adjusted on the fly. Something like this: Cal, Stanford, and SMU all play each other. Each then needs six more conference games. Using our Bears as an example, find an already scheduled ACC matchup of two teams who are not protected rivals, eg Syracuse/Georgia Tech. Replace the Cuse/GT matchup with Cal vs Cuse and Cal vs GT. Do that with two more already scheduled matchups, and Cal would have their 8 conference games.



2024 football schedules in the B1G and Big-12 will need to be changed as of recent events as will the ACC if we join and any conference WSU and OSU link up with. So the ACC will not be unique in that regard.
Reply Quote
1 edit
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RobertHedrock • 7:45p, 8/24/23
RobertHedrock said:
calumnus said:
RobertHedrock said:
I'm an alum of a Big Ten school; when the USC/UCLA move was announced I hoped that Washington, Stanford, and Cal would be invited to the conference; in my view they would all be fabulous additions. I concede that the prospect of an invitation to the Cardinals and Bears now looks dim, but the Big Ten has been quiet about the PAC additions prior to the invitations (e.g., about 12 hours between USC/UCLA public information/acceptance, and a day or two for the northwest pair), so I've not yet completely despaired.

The Bay Area schools would not be dilutive to the current members if they would accept a reduced share for the current contract. The two schools would add nine home games every year to the conference; the 27 annual "Pacific" conference games (plus the roughly dozen home non-conference contests) would provide a solid basis for "Big Ten After Dark" programming; surely Apple/ESPN/FOX/BTN would consider that worth $30M/year, given that many of the games could involve central time zone teams that generate decent ratings (e.g., Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin). The prime time every-other-year Stanford-Notre Dame game (if it is continued) itself must have a value of around $10M.

Notre Dame and the ACC schools, despite the endless speculation, are not going anywhere until a few years prior to 2036 (except perhaps Florida State and Clemson to the SEC, facilitated by ESPN). I don't subscribe to the theory that the Big Ten is currently holding "two spots" for southern schools.

A couple of questions for the posters on this board (I have no idea as to the answers): Will the four PAC/Big Ten schools (which don't have a vote) be pushing the Big Ten presidents to add Stanford and Cal? Would Stanford and Cal agree to $15M/year for the first six years (full share in the next media contract), with a substantial fraction of their home games starting at 7:30 local time, with some or perhaps most on a streaming platform?

The only concern that I would have as a Big Ten president is whether Stanford and Cal would rise to the occasion and be a financial asset to the next media deal.


The advantage of having 6 teams on the West Coast would be you could have a 7:30 Pacific start every week with every West Coast team only playing 1/3 of their home games at that time. 9 games split up among 6 teams. Maybe lean on UCLA, USC and Stanford for two each because they have the warmer evening weather. The rest could be a mix of traditional 1:00 pm kickoffs and late afternoon kickoffs.

We don't know what the ACC offer will be. Reports are we would start low and ramp up to full payment "by the end of the contract" (ie not until 2036). If so, what you are suggesting the B1G might pay would appear to beat that assuming the new contract in 6 years is for the same or more.

Any rumors Cal Stanford are even being considered?

I am unaware of any such rumors, but then the Big Ten is famously tight-lipped on these matters. I just find it difficult to believe that the Big Ten presidents are not seriously investigating ways to add two elite academic universities, a large market, additional broadcast slots, and (for FOX) shut ESPN out of the west coast for unbelievable bargain-basement prices for six years. (But then I was convinced that they would never invite Oregon, so my insights on this matter are suspect!)


There are aspects of our situation with the B1G that don't seem to make rational business sense. It will be interesting to hear what happened when it is all said and done.
Reply Quote
1
golden sloth
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calumnus • 7:45p, 8/24/23
calumnus said:
golden sloth said:
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.


They probably throw Louisville in there for the same reason. The 4 furthest west schools without other long-standing rivalries.
As a point of reference, here are the current protected rivalries:


Quote:
Boston College: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State
Duke: North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Syracuse
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Louisville, Wake Forest
Louisville: Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia
Miami: Boston College, Florida State, Louisville
North Carolina: Duke, NC State, Virginia
NC State: Clemson, Duke, North Carolina
Pitt: Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Syracuse: Boston College, Florida State, Pitt
Virginia: Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Pitt, Virginia, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech
https://theacc.com/news/2022/6/28/acc-announces-football-schedule-model-for-2023-26.aspx

The ACC didn't determine these the lazy way either, they didn't simply develop pods, each team has a unique set of cross-rivalries. For example, Boston College has a rivalry with Miami, Pitt, and Syracuse, but Miami has a rivalry with Florida State and Louisville.

It seems like the ACC weighed both geographical proximity and traditional rivalries.
Reply Quote
1
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 8:54p, 8/24/23
golden sloth said:
calumnus said:
golden sloth said:
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.


They probably throw Louisville in there for the same reason. The 4 furthest west schools without other long-standing rivalries.
As a point of reference, here are the current protected rivalries:


Quote:
Boston College: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State
Duke: North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Syracuse
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Louisville, Wake Forest
Louisville: Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia
Miami: Boston College, Florida State, Louisville
North Carolina: Duke, NC State, Virginia
NC State: Clemson, Duke, North Carolina
Pitt: Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Syracuse: Boston College, Florida State, Pitt
Virginia: Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Pitt, Virginia, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech
https://theacc.com/news/2022/6/28/acc-announces-football-schedule-model-for-2023-26.aspx

The ACC didn't determine these the lazy way either, they didn't simply develop pods, each team has a unique set of cross-rivalries. For example, Boston College has a rivalry with Miami, Pitt, and Syracuse, but Miami has a rivalry with Florida State and Louisville.

It seems like the ACC weighed both geographical proximity and traditional rivalries.


Give me the three weakest.

Stanford, Duke, and Wake?


Reply Quote
2
Oski87
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to golden sloth • 9:01p, 8/24/23
golden sloth said:
calumnus said:
golden sloth said:
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.


They probably throw Louisville in there for the same reason. The 4 furthest west schools without other long-standing rivalries.
As a point of reference, here are the current protected rivalries:


Quote:
Boston College: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State
Duke: North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Syracuse
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Louisville, Wake Forest
Louisville: Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia
Miami: Boston College, Florida State, Louisville
North Carolina: Duke, NC State, Virginia
NC State: Clemson, Duke, North Carolina
Pitt: Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Syracuse: Boston College, Florida State, Pitt
Virginia: Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Pitt, Virginia, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech
https://theacc.com/news/2022/6/28/acc-announces-football-schedule-model-for-2023-26.aspx

The ACC didn't determine these the lazy way either, they didn't simply develop pods, each team has a unique set of cross-rivalries. For example, Boston College has a rivalry with Miami, Pitt, and Syracuse, but Miami has a rivalry with Florida State and Louisville.

It seems like the ACC weighed both geographical proximity and traditional rivalries.
I could see the three new teams added with only two protected rivalries. That way each of their teams comes out to the West Coast twice in a 4 year period.
Reply Quote
3
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oski87 • 9:30p, 8/24/23
Oski87 said:
golden sloth said:
calumnus said:
golden sloth said:
The ACC is implementing a new scheduling system this year where each school has three protected rivals, and they rotate the other 10 teams, playing each twice over a 4 year period. This is referred to as their 3-5-5 plan.

Assuming Cal, Stanford, and SMU are accepted, who do you want as the protected three?

I have Stanford (because obviously), SMU (because Dallas recruiting, easier travel, and a probable win for a few years), and Miami (because its a marque game, in a great recruiting territory, with a great away game destination).

And yes, I realize the ACC might have to revise their scheduling system if they joined, but just indulge in the hypothetical.


They probably throw Louisville in there for the same reason. The 4 furthest west schools without other long-standing rivalries.
As a point of reference, here are the current protected rivalries:


Quote:
Boston College: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State
Duke: North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Syracuse
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Louisville, Wake Forest
Louisville: Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia
Miami: Boston College, Florida State, Louisville
North Carolina: Duke, NC State, Virginia
NC State: Clemson, Duke, North Carolina
Pitt: Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Syracuse: Boston College, Florida State, Pitt
Virginia: Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Pitt, Virginia, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech
https://theacc.com/news/2022/6/28/acc-announces-football-schedule-model-for-2023-26.aspx

The ACC didn't determine these the lazy way either, they didn't simply develop pods, each team has a unique set of cross-rivalries. For example, Boston College has a rivalry with Miami, Pitt, and Syracuse, but Miami has a rivalry with Florida State and Louisville.

It seems like the ACC weighed both geographical proximity and traditional rivalries.
I could see the three new teams added with only two protected rivalries. That way each of their teams comes out to the West Coast twice in a 4 year period.


Agreed. They could keep everything as above and just have Cal, Stanford and SMU be mutual "protected rivalries" ie we play every year, we go to Dallas every other year, and the current ACC minimize their west coast trips
Reply Quote
BerkeleyBAT
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to berserkeley • 9:51p, 8/24/23
berserkeley said:
I have to imagine Louisville would be incredibly upset if their 3 protected rivals were Cal, Stanford, and SMU. Like change their vote to "no" upset.

I would bet that Cal, Stanford, and SMU are all protected rivals and if the ACC decides they should have 3 protected rivals each, then they each get a different, random ACC team.
Stanford-Duke seems like a natural. If we were to choose one for us, who would it be? UNC? GT? BC? Pitt?
Reply Quote
Chabbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:07p, 8/24/23
GT. They have the same song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stanford_Jonah




Reply Quote
1
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chabbear • 10:18p, 8/24/23
Chabbear said:
GT. They have the same song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stanford_Jonah


That right. They are the other song stealers and can replace UCLA.
Reply Quote
1
CrazyPaco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 10:22p, 8/24/23
dimitrig said:
ducky23 said:
dimitrig said:
ducky23 said:
In my mind, the move to the ACC is always going to be a temp thing (until the ACC implodes or whatever other realignment thing happens).

But I assume the plan is that the ACC at least gives us a P4 home for the time being. And in the short term, we all need to up our game (we can't just rely on sebastabear and a few others to carry the load) and Cal needs to start winning. To the point where when the next realignment comes up, we have a little more leverage

Until then, the ACC is a fine home. It's a better academic conference than the BIG, it gives us a better chance to succeed and the road trips are way better.


Sure but out of the frying pan and into the fire? We need to lean on getting into the B1G and use the ACC as leverage.

This is a tangent but why do you think the ACC is a better academic conference? I have not given it much thought but they seem the same if not the B1G slightly better - and that was before adding UCLA, Washington, and USC.




I'm not including ucla et al cause if you do that, then you can presumably add furd/cal to the ACC and it would cancel them out.

But let's just compare the top half

Duke
Notre Dame (If they get to vote, they count)
Virginia
UNC
GT
BC

Northwestern
Michigan
Wisconsin
Rutgers
Illinois
Um Maryland I guess?

Not even close


Well you do have to count UCLA, USC, and Washington because they are part of the conference.

You can't count Cal and Stanford as part of what makes the ACC attractive academically because if we went to the B1G we would be added to their tally. You have to look exclusive of Cal and Stanford.

That said, both conferences are actually academically superior to the former Pac-12.


Although the ACC does have major top 20 research universities: Duke, Pitt, UNC, & Georgia Tech; several ACC schools are focused primarily on undergrad education. Schools like BC, Clemson, and Syracuse do only a modicum of research. And the ACC's institutions have a very different institutional profile than the average Big Ten giant, flagship, land grant school. The ACC is filled with smaller, private universities like Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Miami, etc. So the Big Ten clearly has more of major research universities when you focus just on research metrics like R&D expenditures or citation impact factors.

These characteristics of the ACC's membership is reflected in the ACC Academic Consortium which primarily emphasizes undergraduate programing and support (90% of its funds, which come from the ACC Championship game, go to undergrad initiatives). In fact, it is the only athletic conference consortium that awards fellowships to students; up to $5K is awarded to at least one undergrad student at each campus to support their research or creativity project.

And when looking at the undergrad metrics, the ACC consistently comes out ahead any other FBS conference. Obviously, the most popular and pervasive ranking in the United States, for all of its flaws, is the undergrad ranking from US News & World Report.

Using US News, the mean rank for the current ACC membership is 54.5.
The mean US News ranking for current Big Ten members is 60.4.
If you include UCLA and USC, the Big Ten's mean ranking would drop to 55.0, still behind the current ACC's mean.

if you add Stanford, Cal, and SMU to the ACC, the ACC's average would improve to 50.7.


Reply Quote
3 edits
BearSD
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:07p, 8/24/23
Looking at a ranking of research universities, the latest QS university rankings

Among their top US research universities, Stanford is #3 in the US and UC Berkeley is #4.

ACC members in the US top 60: Duke (18), Georgia Tech (26), UNC-Chapel Hill (31), Pittsburgh (43), Virginia (48), NC State (52), Miami (53), Virginia Tech (57), Notre Dame (58).

15 of the 18 Big Ten members for 2024-25 are in the US top 60 (all but Iowa, Nebraska, and Oregon). UCLA (13) will become the top Big Ten member on this list, just ahead of Michigan (14). Washington (20) is also an upgrade on the Big Ten's current average.
Reply Quote
2
JRL.02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:16a, 8/25/23
Larry Williams, a well-connected Clemson insider who broke the news that Notre Dame was lobbying heavily, says that the ACC as of Friday morning is heading "firmly" toward expansion w/ "significant" revenue boosts for high-achievers.
Reply Quote
2
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JRL.02 • 4:28a, 8/25/23
JRL.02 said:
Larry Williams, a well-connected Clemson insider who broke the news that Notre Dame was lobbying heavily, says that the ACC as of Friday morning is heading "firmly" toward expansion w/ "significant" revenue boosts for high-achievers.


I hope we are eligible.
Reply Quote
2
nikeykid
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:26a, 8/25/23
Reply Quote
bearsandgiants
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nikeykid • 6:40a, 8/25/23
nikeykid said:
That quote sounds like that of a plantation owner. Lol. But nice to see things looking up.
Reply Quote
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearsandgiants • 6:43a, 8/25/23
bearsandgiants said:
nikeykid said:
That quote sounds like that of a plantation owner. Lol. But nice to see things looking up.


Why?
Reply Quote
1
bearsandgiants
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 6:48a, 8/25/23
oski003 said:
bearsandgiants said:
nikeykid said:
That quote sounds like that of a plantation owner. Lol. But nice to see things looking up.


Why?
I'm just picturing foghorn leghorn talking about "these fine institutions" and it makes me laugh.
Reply Quote
2
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearsandgiants • 7:55a, 8/25/23
bearsandgiants said:
oski003 said:
bearsandgiants said:
nikeykid said:
That quote sounds like that of a plantation owner. Lol. But nice to see things looking up.


Why?
I'm just picturing foghorn leghorn talking about "these fine institutions" and it makes me laugh.
Cigar in one hand, spiked sweet tea in the other.
Reply Quote
4
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:37a, 8/25/23

I think Clemson still remembers Cal kicking their ass in the Citrus Bowl. Clemson won the ACC that year.



Reply Quote
1
JimSox
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JRL.02 • 1:31p, 8/25/23
JRL.02 said:
Larry Williams, a well-connected Clemson insider who broke the news that Notre Dame was lobbying heavily, says that the ACC as of Friday morning is heading "firmly" toward expansion w/ "significant" revenue boosts for high-achievers.


This seems like a significant development. Along with the tweet quoting a Clemson administrator. Is Clemson flipping? Although I didn't like the "however, we're not there yet" part of the quote. I wonder why there hasn't been more comment here about this.
Reply Quote
MrGPAC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RobertHedrock • 2:58p, 8/25/23
RobertHedrock said:
I'm an alum of a Big Ten school; when the USC/UCLA move was announced I hoped that Washington, Stanford, and Cal would be invited to the conference; in my view they would all be fabulous additions. I concede that the prospect of an invitation to the Cardinals and Bears now looks dim, but the Big Ten has been quiet about the PAC additions prior to the invitations (e.g., about 12 hours between USC/UCLA public information/acceptance, and a day or two for the northwest pair), so I've not yet completely despaired.

The Bay Area schools would not be dilutive to the current members if they would accept a reduced share for the current contract. The two schools would add nine home games every year to the conference; the 27 annual "Pacific" conference games (plus the roughly dozen home non-conference contests) would provide a solid basis for "Big Ten After Dark" programming; surely Apple/ESPN/FOX/BTN would consider that worth $30M/year, given that many of the games could involve central time zone teams that generate decent ratings (e.g., Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin). The prime time every-other-year Stanford-Notre Dame game (if it is continued) itself must have a value of around $10M.

Notre Dame and the ACC schools, despite the endless speculation, are not going anywhere until a few years prior to 2036 (except perhaps Florida State and Clemson to the SEC, facilitated by ESPN). I don't subscribe to the theory that the Big Ten is currently holding "two spots" for southern schools.

A couple of questions for the posters on this board (I have no idea as to the answers): Will the four PAC/Big Ten schools (which don't have a vote) be pushing the Big Ten presidents to add Stanford and Cal? Would Stanford and Cal agree to $15M/year for the first six years (full share in the next media contract), with a substantial fraction of their home games starting at 7:30 local time, with some or perhaps most on a streaming platform?

The only concern that I would have as a Big Ten president is whether Stanford and Cal would rise to the occasion and be a financial asset to the next media deal.

The Bay Area schools are in a pickle and what they are willing to take to stay in a relevant conference is likely less than they are worth. At this point whoever gets them will be getting an incredible value out of the deal, be it ESPN (ACC) or Fox (B1G).

That said, if you are looking to raise the value of Stanford and Cal so that they are a financial asset to the next media deal, giving them 25% for 6 full years may not be the best way to do it. If I were the B1G and I were investing in the bay area market with Cal and Stanford, I'd want either a very long list of promises on how they are planning to live up to their potential, or direct input on matters to make those things happen. I'd definitely look to have inventive based carrots that would lead to larger potential payouts. Things like attendance % goals for games, increasing tv ratings, proof of investments into the revenue generating sports, etc..

Of course, one would not blame the B1G if they didn't want to put all that effort in...but the best way to get value out of the market would be to see this as an investment, and investments take a lot of effort, a lot of money, or both.
Reply Quote
3
BearBoarBlarney
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 3:15p, 8/25/23
oski003 said:
bearsandgiants said:

That quote sounds like that of a plantation owner. Lol. But nice to see things looking up.


Why?

Given that the quote was coming from some unnamed Clemson administrator, I just assumed bearsandgiants was making a subtle reference to the fact that Clemson University sits on the site of "Fort Hill Plantation," the property belonging to South Carolina's famous pro-slavery senator John C. Calhoun.
Reply Quote
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearBoarBlarney • 3:29p, 8/25/23
BearBoarBlarney said:
oski003 said:
bearsandgiants said:

That quote sounds like that of a plantation owner. Lol. But nice to see things looking up.


Why?

Given that the quote was coming from some unnamed Clemson administrator, I just assumed bearsandgiants was making a subtle reference to the fact that Clemson University sits on the site of "Fort Hill Plantation," the property belonging to South Carolina's famous pro-slavery senator John C. Calhoun.


Wasn't John C. Calhoun born in the 1700s? It's not a funny stereotype. Seems racist.
Reply Quote
3
BearBoarBlarney
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 3:34p, 8/25/23
oski003 said:



Wasn't John C. Calhoun born in the 1700s? It's not a funny stereotype. Seems racist.

Are you referring to the stereotype of a colonial era plantation owner? Not sure where you're going with this...
Reply Quote
1
CALiforniALUM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:37p, 8/25/23
Do the rumored performance incentives include Calford and SMU? If we step into the conference and do some damage could we claw back some of what we are giving up to join the party.

You know the east coast think the PAC was inferior.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.