I don't see how they can get out if the Grant of Rights w/o paying just a TON of money... other than convincing a majority of members to dissolve the conference.sycasey said:SoFlaBear said:
Keep in mind that they have other issues to consider. Florida State is still making noise about a departure.
I think it will be a year at least before anyone can leave the conference.
The latest on Conference Realignment and Cal - Saturday the 19th
202,600 Views |
1043 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
maxer said:I don't see how they can get out if the Grant of Rights w/o paying just a TON of money... other than convincing a majority of members to dissolve the conference.sycasey said:SoFlaBear said:
Keep in mind that they have other issues to consider. Florida State is still making noise about a departure.
I think it will be a year at least before anyone can leave the conference.
If they had a way out of the contract, they would be out already.
It is why FSU and Clemson should actually want and vote for Cal and Stanford to join with full voting rights but a reduced payout. Everyone knows Cal and Stanford want to be in the West Coast Pac-pod of the B1G and if promised that might vote to dissolve the GORs.
In addition to a reduced payout and possibly no vote, I wonder if one of the things we are negotiating is a reduced term for our GORs?
Surely this would be structured so that there was no effect either way on the existing balance of power among the existing ACC schools. (It is the By-Laws, and the assumption that a majority of the 15 members could vote to dissolve to escape the GOR, that is the sensitive calculation.)
I have wondered if the ACC might add the PAC-4 as like a subsidiary. The PAC-4 media value with night games, etc., would be incremental to "nothing" on the PAC-4 side and incremental value to the ACC side scheduling those games on the ACC Network rather than GT/BC (or whatever is worth less viewership). Or those games could be re-sold by ESPN/ACCN to ABC or CBS or whoever.
If I were the ACC and the PAC, I would set that up so that if the PAC side wanted to break it, they could with maybe two years notice (to adjust schedules) or one year's notice and a penalty. Maybe the ACC would provide the PAC with a commensurate breakage arrangement if the ACC broke the agreement.
Under this conception I just made up, the PAC-4 might be more valuable than just Stanford and Cal to the ACC, although WSU and OSU would water down the value to be received from Stanford and Cal's end of the money.
I am not an insider, but I do want the ACC to survive. And I don't like seeing the remaining PAC-4 schools twisting int he wind. I think this would be beneficial to ACC stability and provide at least a temporary home / scheduling arrangement for the PAC-4.
(An alternative to all of this would just be a contractual scheduling arrangment with a split in media value. The PAC-4 would be free to add schools like SMU etc., and then those would be worked into the scheduling arrangement.)
I have wondered if the ACC might add the PAC-4 as like a subsidiary. The PAC-4 media value with night games, etc., would be incremental to "nothing" on the PAC-4 side and incremental value to the ACC side scheduling those games on the ACC Network rather than GT/BC (or whatever is worth less viewership). Or those games could be re-sold by ESPN/ACCN to ABC or CBS or whoever.
If I were the ACC and the PAC, I would set that up so that if the PAC side wanted to break it, they could with maybe two years notice (to adjust schedules) or one year's notice and a penalty. Maybe the ACC would provide the PAC with a commensurate breakage arrangement if the ACC broke the agreement.
Under this conception I just made up, the PAC-4 might be more valuable than just Stanford and Cal to the ACC, although WSU and OSU would water down the value to be received from Stanford and Cal's end of the money.
I am not an insider, but I do want the ACC to survive. And I don't like seeing the remaining PAC-4 schools twisting int he wind. I think this would be beneficial to ACC stability and provide at least a temporary home / scheduling arrangement for the PAC-4.
(An alternative to all of this would just be a contractual scheduling arrangment with a split in media value. The PAC-4 would be free to add schools like SMU etc., and then those would be worked into the scheduling arrangement.)
I don't think Cal and Stanford would accept this, to be honest. If it's not going to membership in a major conference, then I think the alternative is probably the Ivy model.DemonDeke said:
Surely this would be structured so that there was no effect either way on the existing balance of power among the existing ACC schools. (It is the By-Laws, and the assumption that a majority of the 15 members could vote to dissolve to escape the GOR, that is the sensitive calculation.)
I have wondered if the ACC might add the PAC-4 as like a subsidiary. The PAC-4 media value with night games, etc., would be incremental to "nothing" on the PAC-4 side and incremental value to the ACC side scheduling those games on the ACC Network rather than GT/BC (or whatever is worth less viewership). Or those games could be re-sold by ESPN/ACCN to ABC or CBS or whoever.
If I were the ACC and the PAC, I would set that up so that if the PAC side wanted to break it, they could with maybe two years notice (to adjust schedules) or one year's notice and a penalty. Maybe the ACC would provide the PAC with a commensurate breakage arrangement if the ACC broke the agreement.
Under this conception I just made up, the PAC-4 might be more valuable than just Stanford and Cal to the ACC, although WSU and OSU would water down the value to be received from Stanford and Cal's end of the money.
I am not an insider, but I do want the ACC to survive. And I don't like seeing the remaining PAC-4 schools twisting int he wind. I think this would be beneficial to ACC stability and provide at least a temporary home / scheduling arrangement for the PAC-4.
(An alternative to all of this would just be a contractual scheduling arrangment with a split in media value. The PAC-4 would be free to add schools like SMU etc., and then those would be worked into the scheduling arrangement.)
I'd be real nervous if I was Wake Forest, or Boston College, or Vandy, or Northwestern, or Illinois. They're next.
DemonDeke said:
Surely this would be structured so that there was no effect either way on the existing balance of power among the existing ACC schools. (It is the By-Laws, and the assumption that a majority of the 15 members could vote to dissolve to escape the GOR, that is the sensitive calculation.)
I have wondered if the ACC might add the PAC-4 as like a subsidiary. The PAC-4 media value with night games, etc., would be incremental to "nothing" on the PAC-4 side and incremental value to the ACC side scheduling those games on the ACC Network rather than GT/BC (or whatever is worth less viewership). Or those games could be re-sold by ESPN/ACCN to ABC or CBS or whoever.
If I were the ACC and the PAC, I would set that up so that if the PAC side wanted to break it, they could with maybe two years notice (to adjust schedules) or one year's notice and a penalty. Maybe the ACC would provide the PAC with a commensurate breakage arrangement if the ACC broke the agreement.
Under this conception I just made up, the PAC-4 might be more valuable than just Stanford and Cal to the ACC, although WSU and OSU would water down the value to be received from Stanford and Cal's end of the money.
I am not an insider, but I do want the ACC to survive. And I don't like seeing the remaining PAC-4 schools twisting int he wind. I think this would be beneficial to ACC stability and provide at least a temporary home / scheduling arrangement for the PAC-4.
(An alternative to all of this would just be a contractual scheduling arrangment with a split in media value. The PAC-4 would be free to add schools like SMU etc., and then those would be worked into the scheduling arrangement.)
I think something like this, keeping the PAC-4 as a separate conference for 2024, but with a scheduling alliance with the ACC and an ESPN (or Apple) contract, makes sense if they can't get the 12th vote. Kicks the can down the road and keeps options open for 2025 and beyond. Not ideal, but better than accepting relegation to the G5.
The Monty Show host says ACC expansion is closer than ever. Both NC schools went from "no" to "maybe"… IF… Stanford does agree to go without a payout for a few years
so...we're stuck in a real life PLFJ meeting ...CALiforniALUM said:
They cancelled a non-vote standing meeting so they could reschedule it for a voting meeting.
JRL.02 said:
The Monty Show host says ACC expansion is closer than ever. Both NC schools went from "no" to "maybe"… IF… Stanford does agree to go without a payout for a few years
I thought we heard that's exactly what Stanford was offering. So what's the delay? Good Lord this whole endless ordeal is maddening.
According to insiders here (BearGreg and Sebastabear) it's not true that Stanford is offering to take zero payout.JimSox said:JRL.02 said:
The Monty Show host says ACC expansion is closer than ever. Both NC schools went from "no" to "maybe"… IF… Stanford does agree to go without a payout for a few years
I thought we heard that's exactly what Stanford was offering. So what's the delay? Good Lord this whole endless ordeal is maddening.
Here's my thinking… would the acc really lead Stanford and cal on like this if they were not gonna be able to reach an agreement? I would say no but who the heck knows! Some deadlines are approaching..
There are lots of details to figure out. Could be which Olympic sports participate. Could be voting rights on which issues. Could be scheduling arrangements. Could just be that the NC schools only went from a "no" to a "maybe." Could be how the GOR works. Who knows.
I am beginning to feel jerked around.Piratefan2102 said:
Here's my thinking… would the acc really lead Stanford and cal on like this if they were not gonna be able to reach an agreement? I would say no but who the heck knows! Some deadlines are approaching..
The ACC still does not have the votes to add Cal and Stanford, sources told @247Sports Tuesday afternoon. There was a regular meeting of the presidents scheduled for Tuesday, but it was canceled.
— Brandon Marcello (@bmarcello) August 23, 2023
Gulp
Anyone know NCSU's AD Venmo? PayPal?
Stick a fork in it...mostang said:The ACC still does not have the votes to add Cal and Stanford, sources told @247Sports Tuesday afternoon. There was a regular meeting of the presidents scheduled for Tuesday, but it was canceled.
— Brandon Marcello (@bmarcello) August 23, 2023
It's like we're trying to get an invitation to a party, and we've asked everyone who is going that we know, and maybe the host will eventually invite us, or maybe it's just that no one wants to be the one who tells us no.bipolarbear said:I am beginning to feel jerked around.Piratefan2102 said:
Here's my thinking… would the acc really lead Stanford and cal on like this if they were not gonna be able to reach an agreement? I would say no but who the heck knows! Some deadlines are approaching..
Okay. Bear Greg started this thread by saying we had the votes. Would be today. Then he said might slip a day or two later. Time to hear from him again. Are we dead in the water or not.
Marcello's more reliable than many that have weighed in, and the f-ing UNC women's soccer coach going Mack Brown didn't help.JimSox said:
Okay. Bear Greg started this thread by saying we had the votes. Would be today. Then he said might slip a day or two later. Time to hear from him again. Are we dead in the water or not.
On a positive note, Christ and Knowlton have been super quiet and secretive so they must be working on something big!
Cabin14 said:Marcello's more reliable than many that have weighed in, and the f-ing UNC women's soccer coach going Mack Brown didn't help.JimSox said:
Okay. Bear Greg started this thread by saying we had the votes. Would be today. Then he said might slip a day or two later. Time to hear from him again. Are we dead in the water or not.
It didn't hurt either. Big yawner.
Women's soccer is not driving realignment.GMP said:It didn't hurt either. Big yawner.Cabin14 said:Marcello's more reliable than many that have weighed in, and the f-ing UNC women's soccer coach going Mack Brown didn't help.JimSox said:
Okay. Bear Greg started this thread by saying we had the votes. Would be today. Then he said might slip a day or two later. Time to hear from him again. Are we dead in the water or not.
A more positive note would be for those two to get out of the way and let Stanford lead. MTL made it clear that G5 was not an option.Econ141 said:
On a positive note, Christ and Knowlton have been super quiet and secretive so they must be working on something big!
This seems to be unraveling but I have never seen the reason for this. It is total patch work - is the ACC trying to become a super conference? No - All indications are this is only to placate FSU and Clemson. They don't want us, this is just fitting a square peg in a round hole. And because of that - no deal can be made.
Lets just work in adding teams to the Pac8Econ141 said:
This seems to be unraveling but I have never seen the reason for this. It is total patch work - is the ACC trying to become a super conference? No - All indications are this is only to placate FSU and Clemson. They don't want us, this is just fitting a square peg in a round hole. And because of that - no deal can be made.
Go Bears!
Two confusing updates from this guy:
I continue to hear that the ACC has 4 "no" votes on expansion with FSU, Clemson, NC State, and UNC. I am told Miami is also a no, but has been very neutral throughout the process. There will be no more calls or lobbying, the next news will likely be the last news we get, yes or…
— YouTube: The Monty Show (@TheMontyShow) August 22, 2023
We have a BIG update on #ACC expansion, what has changed and why is ACC Expansion as close as it has ever been? Talking about it NOW on #YouTube LIVE https://t.co/XXfNRV19Y7
— YouTube: The Monty Show (@TheMontyShow) August 22, 2023
whatever the result, he's 100% right.
When did MTL say this?Big Dog said:A more positive note would be for those two to get out of the way and let Stanford lead. MTL made it clear that G5 was not an option.Econ141 said:
On a positive note, Christ and Knowlton have been super quiet and secretive so they must be working on something big!
I will not consider these doors closed until the ACC and Big Ten put out statements suggesting they are done expanding for 2024. The Big 12 actually did that.
On the other hand, these statements from the Illinois President (Chair of B10 Council or Presidents / Chancellors) is about the best thing we could have heard:
From Chair of COP/C pic.twitter.com/Gz1qPnxEzw
— Big Ten information. College football fan (@Genetics56) August 22, 2023
"This work is never done... appointed a joint working group of 5 or 6 of my colleagues who are doing the analytics / deep dive" "this was in process before we added Oregon and Washington" (who we know had been thoroughly vetted) "but unfortunately Colorado put everything in hyperdrive" but "we will make decisions in our own time and in our own way" --- "I can guarantee you won't be hearing anything about conference expansion in the next two or three days" (two to three days?!?!?! -- he could of literally said anything else and it would've been longer)
"The best conference in the country at this junction --- a position we plan to hold onto because we do keep academics first"
"we are known first and foremost for academics --- that academic component gives us a different kind of look compared to the rest of the conferences --- our commitment to student welfare... and then of course, these things don't pay for themselves, the revenue part of it has to be a consideration"
"But at this point we are just focused on integrating those 4 institutions and doing the thoughtful analysis to see what the landscape is and to continue to be prepared if there is a strategic opportunity to expand that aligns with our value propositions --- and, if not, 18 is a good number"
Full interview:
4:20; 8:25; 12:15 of note
Joined:
Jul 9, 2017
Posts:
8,149
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
No reason to change what I said earlier.
BearGreg said:
No reason to change what I said earlier.
The simple interpretation, or that it may take a couple days?
oskidunker said:Lets just work in adding teams to the Pac8Econ141 said:
This seems to be unraveling but I have never seen the reason for this. It is total patch work - is the ACC trying to become a super conference? No - All indications are this is only to placate FSU and Clemson. They don't want us, this is just fitting a square peg in a round hole. And because of that - no deal can be made.
OSU, WSU, Kliavkoff and Luck are working on that separately.
I assume this means he still thinks a deal is coming, but it might take a few more days to be finalized.ecb said:BearGreg said:
No reason to change what I said earlier.
The simple interpretation, or that it may take a couple days?
Hard to believe we wouldn't know either way by Saturday. I find it unlikely the ACC would want this to stretch into the season.
BearGreg said:
No reason to change what I said earlier.
Thanks BG.
From the hinter lands of ohio.
I can tell you. Having followed Big 10 expansion since before Penn State, the Big 10 is always reviewing potential expansion and expansion candidates. As the Chancellor of Illinois stated (heard Jim Delaney say many times), they are always getting inquiries on expansion.
From what the Big 10 office has said, they were not planning on expanding at this time with Oregon and Washington. I believe the plan was for expanding down the road (several years). But the situation forced their plans and it was moved up.
I still believe they (Presidents) want to take in Stanford and Cal but the money is not there (yet). And they are having issues with their media partners.
Speculation, I believe they (Commissioner with his background & ties) are working behind the scenes to see what they can do with their media partners. Streaming, Thursday night games, Friday night games, Late night Saturday, 10 game conference schedule vs 9 games - many options.
The Big 10 wants to expand into the SE (ACC schools) and I believe this has caused them to put Stanford and Cal on the back burner. The ACC is a dead man walking conference. 7 maybe 8 members want out given their Grant of Rights. FSU (and others) is looking at being $500 million behind their counterparts in the SEC and Big 10 over the next 10 years. Thus why the no votes on Stanford and Cal, with those 2 and SMU, FSU, Clemson and a few others would be locked in the ACC for the next 13 years.
At the end of the day, I still believe Stanford and Cal will be in the Big 10. Just might be a long and bumpy road.
Good luck.
I can tell you. Having followed Big 10 expansion since before Penn State, the Big 10 is always reviewing potential expansion and expansion candidates. As the Chancellor of Illinois stated (heard Jim Delaney say many times), they are always getting inquiries on expansion.
From what the Big 10 office has said, they were not planning on expanding at this time with Oregon and Washington. I believe the plan was for expanding down the road (several years). But the situation forced their plans and it was moved up.
I still believe they (Presidents) want to take in Stanford and Cal but the money is not there (yet). And they are having issues with their media partners.
Speculation, I believe they (Commissioner with his background & ties) are working behind the scenes to see what they can do with their media partners. Streaming, Thursday night games, Friday night games, Late night Saturday, 10 game conference schedule vs 9 games - many options.
The Big 10 wants to expand into the SE (ACC schools) and I believe this has caused them to put Stanford and Cal on the back burner. The ACC is a dead man walking conference. 7 maybe 8 members want out given their Grant of Rights. FSU (and others) is looking at being $500 million behind their counterparts in the SEC and Big 10 over the next 10 years. Thus why the no votes on Stanford and Cal, with those 2 and SMU, FSU, Clemson and a few others would be locked in the ACC for the next 13 years.
At the end of the day, I still believe Stanford and Cal will be in the Big 10. Just might be a long and bumpy road.
Good luck.
Featured Stories
See All
Depleted Bears Hold Off Air Force, 78-69
by Jim McGill
Bears Host Big Group For 127th Big Game
by Jim McGill
Bears Rain 3's on Grambling State, Win 86-63
by Jim McGill
The Rodcast - Cal vs USC Breakdown
by Rod Benson
Ultimate Insider Podcast E99: Syracuse Wrap-up, Stanford Preview
by Mike Pawlawski