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

199,404 Views | 1043 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
Bowlesman80
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 sycasey • 12:50p, 9/1/23
sycasey said:
Econ141 said:


Hmmm

So after she retires then.
Semantic game.
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
2
Anon378
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:54p, 9/1/23
I just wanted to say now that this is done… welcome to the ACC! I am glad you guys found a power conference home following the PAC Chaos.
Reply Quote
18
Bowlesman80
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 GoCal80 • 12:57p, 9/1/23
GoCal80 said:
Dear campus community,

I am pleased to share with you that UC Berkeley will be joining the ACC intercollegiate athletics conference beginning with the 2024-25 academic year. This decision supports the best interests of our student-athletes and will secure Cal Athletics' long-term stability, while preserving the program's stature and the essential role it plays on our campus and in our extended community of students, faculty, staff, and alumni.

Our longtime rival and neighbor Stanford University also announced it will be joining the ACC next summer, as did Southern Methodist University (SMU). We look forward to cheering on the Golden Bears in their new conference home, just as we look forward to many more years of competing for The Stanford Axe.

Our decision to join the ACC comes against the backdrop of significant conference realignment across the country in recent years, and was made after a comprehensive exploration of options, and in the wake of extensive efforts and diligent negotiations in recent weeks. I want to thank UC President Michael Drake and Director of Athletics Jim Knowlton for the partnership, hard work, and leadership that made this agreement possible.

Given its championship culture and academic stature, the ACC is an excellent match for our university and will provide an elite competitive context for our student-athletes in the changing landscape of intercollegiate athletics. The conference sponsors competition at the highest levels in 28 sports, 24 of which Cal participates in. No conference has won more NCAA National Championships over the last two years than the ACC. In the academic realm, the most recent US News & World Report rankings of "Best Colleges" recognized the ACC as the leader among the elite NCAA conferences for the 16th consecutive year. With the addition of Cal and Stanford, the ACC now features nine institutions that are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities.

While membership in the ACC will result in some increased travel for student-athletes and staff, 19 of Cal's 30 sports, representing about two-thirds of our student-athletes, will experience minimal, or no change at all in the amount of travel required by competition. These teams are either already traveling east to compete or won't need to. We will also be exploring a number of measures that will minimize the impact additional travel could have on the remaining student-athletes.

We will be joining the ACC as full members and have agreed to return a portion of our media rights revenue to the conference in support of its long-term strength. While I am certain that the agreement's financial terms are the best we could have secured, we recognize that this agreement will create budgetary challenges for our university. I will be engaging members of the campus and Cal Athletics administration, as well as President Drake and the Board of Regents, in a collaborative process as we examine the impacts, weigh options for the future, and take the steps necessary to maintain the strength of the university's financial foundations as well as the essential role intercollegiate athletics plays on our campus.

I am looking forward to a new era of excellence for Cal Athletics.

Go Bears!

Carol T. Christ
Chancellor
Blather, blather, deflect from incompetence and indifference.

Here's a test:

Tell the good chancellor that we going to make a run for the CFP. Her reaction of surprise and indignance will tell you everything wrong with Cal leadership and how we became beggars at the back door of the ACC.
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Bowlesman80
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 Anon378 • 12:58p, 9/1/23
Anon378 said:
I just wanted to say now that this is done… welcome to the ACC! I am glad you guys found a power conference home following the PAC Chaos.
Thank You!

After enduring a month of trolls and uncertainty, it's nice to hear such pleasant regards.
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
6
bluehenbear
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 sycasey • 1:00p, 9/1/23
And the new chancellor kicks the current AD out the door. Mr. Sunshine and Rainbows isn't going to do the "dirty work".
Reply Quote
3
GoCal80
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:16p, 9/1/23
Pretty good analysis of where we are with college football at this time:


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/sports/ncaafootball/college-football-preview-realignment-big12-bigten-acc-pac12-bigten.html#:~:text=Conferences%20Are%20Changing.-,The%20Sport%20Is%2C%20Too.,joining%20the%20Atlantic%20Coast%20Conference.


"College athletics have always held themselves apart from professional sports that way, leaning into their tie to higher education. And yet, as football and some other college sports more closely resemble a professional model, their link to the educational mission of nonprofit, largely public universities is increasingly tangential."

""This has become a soulless enterprise," [Michael] LeRoy said. "There is no moral compass. There is no brotherhood. Now you eat off your brother's plate and you don't care if he goes hungry.""
Reply Quote
4
Big Dog
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 sycasey • 1:24p, 9/1/23
sycasey said:
Econ141 said:


Hmmm

So after she retires then.
Get that CaliMoney first.
Reply Quote
3
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 GoCal80 • 1:27p, 9/1/23
GoCal80 said:
Pretty good analysis of where we are with college football at this time:


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/sports/ncaafootball/college-football-preview-realignment-big12-bigten-acc-pac12-bigten.html#:~:text=Conferences%20Are%20Changing.-,The%20Sport%20Is%2C%20Too.,joining%20the%20Atlantic%20Coast%20Conference.


"College athletics have always held themselves apart from professional sports that way, leaning into their tie to higher education. And yet, as football and some other college sports more closely resemble a professional model, their link to the educational mission of nonprofit, largely public universities is increasingly tangential."

""This has become a soulless enterprise," [Michael] LeRoy said. "There is no moral compass. There is no brotherhood. Now you eat off your brother's plate and you don't care if he goes hungry.""


For the record, I would have been very happy and preferred to get rid of the BCS bowls and the College Football Playoff and returned to regional conferences with the best teams as determined by conference record going to play an annual exhibition game like the Rose Bowl.
Reply Quote
7
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 sycasey • 1:41p, 9/1/23
sycasey said:
Econ141 said:


Hmmm

So after she retires then.


A year from now. Concurrent with our joining the ACC. Convenient.
Reply Quote
2
BearGreg
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:52p, 9/1/23
Staff
They are not going to cut sports within an academic year regardless. However, you would think they would announce such cuts prior to her departure.
Reply Quote
zorbarick
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:24p, 9/1/23
To me, it makes no sense to talk of cutting specific sports right away. Do I think cuts will have to be made? Absolutely. But it's going to take time for the dust to settle on what has just happened, and I imagine any sport that believes it could be on the chopping block is going to be working hard to find donors/figure out its funding to make a case to be saved. And every sport should be given some time to get its own "financial house" in order before decisions are made.

I personally love the "lesser" sports, and will be sad to see any of them go. But reality is reality, and if we don't find a way to thrive in football - and fast - this may well be only a temporary stop on the way to oblivion. And that's going to mean investing more $ in the football program and less elsewhere.
Reply Quote
7
GMP
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 zorbarick • 2:46p, 9/1/23
As a Cal baseball fan, I am concerned.

Cal Baseball needs to start hitting up our MLB alumni for some help:

Semien signed a $175M contract and previously made around $43M. Xavier Nady made $20M. Canha has made $40M. Andrew Craig made $32M. Andrew Knapp made a few million. Brandon Morrow made $48M. Tyson Ross made $31M. Andrew Vaughn should start making big dollars soon.

It would not take much if they all pitched in.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
Bowlesman80
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 GMP • 4:47p, 9/1/23
GMP said:
As a Cal baseball fan, I am concerned.

Cal Baseball needs to start hitting up our MLB alumni for some help:

Semien signed a $175M contract and previously made around $43M. Xavier Nady made $20M. Canna has made $40M. Andrew Craig made $32M. Andrew Knapp made a few million. Brandon Morrow made $48M. Tyson Ross made $31M. Andrew Vaughn should start making big dollars soon.

It would not take much if they all pitched in.
Just went to "Caliber" today and donated to FB, MBB, and baseball.
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
2
BarcaBear
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 accprisoner • 4:55p, 9/1/23
accprisoner said:
Fsu and clemson both have 200m+ in buyout funds ready to go at a moments notice. They will be gone by the time the 2027 season starts if not sooner.
Your numbers are completely wrong.

Current grant of rights deal penalty is as follows: a teams annual revenue distribution times the number of years left on the contract.

ACC revenue distribution last year was $39 million. Neither Clemson, nor FSU would be dumb enough to break the GoR. it would cost close to half a billion. Given the revenue they would get from either the SEC or B1G, the money would wash out if they at the earliest left in 2027. They will probably both jump in 2030 just in time for the renegotiation of the B1G contracts.

SEC is not going to take either team Clemson or FSU.

and both teams, FSU moreso, are going to raise all sorts of hell, and scream like banshees, but the money makes no sense for them to jump before 2030.


Reply Quote
1
BarcaBear
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 • 5:05p, 9/1/23
BearSD said:
philly1121 said:


In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.

Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
I'll go out on a limb and say, yes, the ACC GOR will last to June 2036, even if FSU and a couple of others get an SEC or Big Ten invite and buy their way out of the ACC. I don't think ND will be leaving; they wanted this expansion so that the ACC will survive an FSU departure and ND can keep its indy/ACC arrangement.

Even if 4 teams left the ACC before 2036, it would still be a far better place for Cal and Stanford than any AAC/MWC mishmash.

Also, the ACC can expand further before 2036 if the opportunity arises. The Big 12 GOR expires in June 2031.
hopefully the ACC and Big XII can figure out a merger for football and basketball.
Reply Quote
Anon378
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:27p, 9/1/23
I think ACC membership can really jolt Cal basketball under Mark Madsen.
Reply Quote
14
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 BearSD • 5:27p, 9/1/23
BearSD said:
golden sloth said:
BearSD said:
philly1121 said:


In my opinion, getting us, Stanford and SMU into the ACC means that the ACC knows that FSU, Clemson and UNC are going to leave in 6 years or sooner. They will negotiate the buyout of the GoR. I don't understand how people think that its ironclad. FSU already has lawyers looking into it. they will negotiate a buyout just like UT and OK did with B12.

Does anyone really think the GoR is going to last for 12 more years? 12 years?? Between now and 2036 - college football may look entirely different. In 6 years it might!
I'll go out on a limb and say, yes, the ACC GOR will last to June 2036, even if FSU and a couple of others get an SEC or Big Ten invite and buy their way out of the ACC. I don't think ND will be leaving; they wanted this expansion so that the ACC will survive an FSU departure and ND can keep its indy/ACC arrangement.

Even if 4 teams left the ACC before 2036, it would still be a far better place for Cal and Stanford than any AAC/MWC mishmash.

Also, the ACC can expand further before 2036 if the opportunity arises. The Big 12 GOR expires in June 2031.


I think there is an interesting question embedded with this comment. If the best of the ACC is poached, what if the remaining best of the Big-XII and ACC chose leave and form a new conference. What would that look like and entail? Basically, you take the top 8 or 9 remaining programs and forge a new conference out of it.

You can break the schools into regional subdivisions to ease travel and still have a national footprint.
Interesting, but less likely given that any school leaving the ACC before June 2036 would have to buy its way out. In 2031, Big 12 teams will be able to leave the Big 12 for the ACC (or anywhere else) at a much lower cost than ACC teams could leave the ACC.
I could see the 4 corner schools going to the ACC - they were talking before and it just happened too fast to get them in. They would come in a full rates at that point. They are all AAU schools. Add in Tulane, and you are up to 23 schools with football full time, and 24 without. Take out 3 or 4 and you still have the best conference remaining, and the Big 12 is essentially dead.
Reply Quote
2
Cabin14
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 sycasey • 5:28p, 9/1/23
sycasey said:
Econ141 said:


Hmmm

So after she retires then.
How about AD's…will they be cut?
Reply Quote
4
Anon378
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 Anon378 • 5:31p, 9/1/23
The perception is that the ACC has fallen in basketball, but they are the only league to get at least a team in each final four since like 2018.
Reply Quote
6
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:05p, 9/1/23
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.

Reply Quote
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 sycasey • 6:22p, 9/1/23
That Twitter account engages in as much wild speculation as any of the West Virginia dudes.

As discussed on another thread, the "going rate" for escaping a GOR is $50 million per year per team, which is what Texas and Oklahoma paid the Big 12. Anyone who wants to talk about FSU and Clemson leaving 10 years before the end of the GOR needs to first show us that each has about $500 million on hand. That might happen someday, who knows, but anyone who wants to deal in reality and not fantasy has to deal with the amount of money required.
Reply Quote
3
Bowlesman80
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 sycasey • 6:34p, 9/1/23
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.

Best meme.
Kind of sums up the PAC12 postmortem
"Just win, baby."
Reply Quote
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 sycasey • 6:42p, 9/1/23
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
Reply Quote
6
philly1121
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 Big Dog • 7:09p, 9/1/23
Big Dog said:
sycasey said:
Econ141 said:


Hmmm

So after she retires then.
Get that CaliMoney first.
Calimoney? I guess we're going on Amtrak to the East Coast.
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
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 • 7:10p, 9/1/23
golden sloth said:
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.

Yeah, it would seem that should trigger a renegotiation.
Reply Quote
1
BarcaBear
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 • 7:38p, 9/1/23
golden sloth said:
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.

Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.

If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.

But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.

sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.
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
7:40p, 9/1/23
One other side note to joining the ACC that favors my personal tastes. Away games will no longer be at night.

If I'm not going to the game, I prefer early games to free up my evenings and late afternoons for social events. Playing in away games in the east coast timezones should help that.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
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 BarcaBear • 7:44p, 9/1/23
BarcaBear said:
golden sloth said:
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.

Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.

If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.

But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.

sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.


Pac-12 should have merged with the ACC but apparently USC would not be happy in the same way Clemson and FSU are not happy.

Could the remaining Pac-10 members have done so? Maybe but with Oregon and Washington in the Big10 it seems they also would have been unhappy in the ACC.

All of which is to say that the former Pac-12 didn't have the juice so why would the dregs of the Pac-12 and Big-12 have any negotiating power?

Reply Quote
1
Bowlesman80
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 philly1121 • 7:57p, 9/1/23
philly1121 said:
Big Dog said:
sycasey said:
Econ141 said:


Hmmm

So after she retires then.
Get that CaliMoney first.
Calimoney? I guess we're going on Amtrak to the East Coast.
I get the humor, but the truth is Amtrak would cost more. Much more.
"Just win, baby."
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 dimitrig • 8:18p, 9/1/23
dimitrig said:
BarcaBear said:
golden sloth said:
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.

Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.

If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.

But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.

sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.


Pac-12 should have merged with the ACC but apparently USC would not be happy in the same way Clemson and FSU are not happy.

Could the remaining Pac-10 members have done so? Maybe but with Oregon and Washington in the Big10 it seems they also would have been unhappy in the ACC.

All of which is to say that the former Pac-12 didn't have the juice so why would the dregs of the Pac-12 and Big-12 have any negotiating power?



After USC and UCLA bolted, a PAC-10 merger with the B1G or ACC was the way to go but was not in Kliavkoff's self-interest so he did not push for it and most of the presidents were too clueless to notice.

This is a great outcome considering we put ourselves in. Horrible position.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Anon378
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28p, 9/1/23
Maryland did not have to buy out of the GoR. I don't think the ACC had a GoR then.
Reply Quote
BarcaBear
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 • 8:49p, 9/1/23
dimitrig said:
BarcaBear said:
golden sloth said:
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.

Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.

If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.

But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.

sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.


Pac-12 should have merged with the ACC but apparently USC would not be happy in the same way Clemson and FSU are not happy.

Could the remaining Pac-10 members have done so? Maybe but with Oregon and Washington in the Big10 it seems they also would have been unhappy in the ACC.

All of which is to say that the former Pac-12 didn't have the juice so why would the dregs of the Pac-12 and Big-12 have any negotiating power?

ignore the griping of teams in the past, because that is not relevant to this scenario.

Look up all the relevant media markets across all time zones.
if subscriber count is what it all comes down to, then that many schools would have considerable negotiating power. Between the two conferences and a handful of other teams...that would be about a third of all college football teams.

consider this...the juggernaut conferences can't just play with themselves, they need OOC games in order to bolster their claims to winning records.
Reply Quote
1
GoCal80
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:00p, 9/1/23

No matter how anyone spins it, joining the ACC was not a pretty solution to Cal's and Stanford's predicament. The payout is relatively low and the travel and time zone changes are brutal for the athletes. Moreover, the travel/timezone burden is not reciprocal since Cal and Stanford will have to make many more trips to the East Coast than the other ACC teams will have to make to the West Coast.


https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/conference-realignment-winners-losers-stanford-cal-face-travel-headaches-smu-gets-long-awaited-promotion/

"Losers: Stanford and Cal
The Bay Area pairing received a life raft, but at what cost? The duo will now play a travel schedule -- across numerous sports -- that makes the Big Ten look downright logical. The closest existing ACC school is Louisville, which sits just under 2,000 miles away. SMU provides some relief at only 1,500 miles.

To make matters worse, Stanford and Cal were members of the Pac-12 when the league failed to negotiate a new media rights deal. With ESPN reportedly offering in the neighborhood of $30 million per school in annual payout, the Pac-12 supposedly countered with a $50 million-per-member price tag. Now, Stanford and Cal will likely make closer to $20 million through the first seven years of their agreement with the ACC, much closer to the AAC than any other power program.

Mix massive distances and travel budgets with athletic departments that will suddenly be making significantly less money, and you've got a recipe for quite the headache."
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
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 BarcaBear • 9:03p, 9/1/23
BarcaBear said:
dimitrig said:
BarcaBear said:
golden sloth said:
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.

Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.

If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.

But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.

sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.


Pac-12 should have merged with the ACC but apparently USC would not be happy in the same way Clemson and FSU are not happy.

Could the remaining Pac-10 members have done so? Maybe but with Oregon and Washington in the Big10 it seems they also would have been unhappy in the ACC.

All of which is to say that the former Pac-12 didn't have the juice so why would the dregs of the Pac-12 and Big-12 have any negotiating power?

ignore the griping of teams in the past, because that is not relevant to this scenario.

Look up all the relevant media markets across all time zones.
if subscriber count is what it all comes down to, then that many schools would have considerable negotiating power. Between the two conferences and a handful of other teams...that would be about a third of all college football teams.

consider this...the juggernaut conferences can't just play with themselves, they need OOC games in order to bolster their claims to winning records.


All that really matters is if anyone will watch the games.

I would argue that:

1. Wide swaths of the country are not served by professional teams and that seems just fine. The goal isn't to cover the most territory but to have the most valuable territory and the most valuable brands.

2. I don't think OOC games are really all that necessary any more than MLB teams needs to play against AAA teams.

Now, there is not an exact parallel between professional sports and college sports but that is where this is headed. I think a lot of teams will fade into irrelevance. Only the top 25 or 30 will be playing at the highest level versus 65 right now.




Reply Quote
1
BarcaBear
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 • 11:09p, 9/1/23
dimitrig said:
BarcaBear said:
dimitrig said:
BarcaBear said:
golden sloth said:
sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.



I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.

Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.

If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.

But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.

sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.


Pac-12 should have merged with the ACC but apparently USC would not be happy in the same way Clemson and FSU are not happy.

Could the remaining Pac-10 members have done so? Maybe but with Oregon and Washington in the Big10 it seems they also would have been unhappy in the ACC.

All of which is to say that the former Pac-12 didn't have the juice so why would the dregs of the Pac-12 and Big-12 have any negotiating power?

ignore the griping of teams in the past, because that is not relevant to this scenario.

Look up all the relevant media markets across all time zones.
if subscriber count is what it all comes down to, then that many schools would have considerable negotiating power. Between the two conferences and a handful of other teams...that would be about a third of all college football teams.

consider this...the juggernaut conferences can't just play with themselves, they need OOC games in order to bolster their claims to winning records.


All that really matters is if anyone will watch the games.

I would argue that:

1. Wide swaths of the country are not served by professional teams and that seems just fine. The goal isn't to cover the most territory but to have the most valuable territory and the most valuable brands.

2. I don't think OOC games are really all that necessary any more than MLB teams needs to play against AAA teams.

Now, there is not an exact parallel between professional sports and college sports but that is where this is headed. I think a lot of teams will fade into irrelevance. Only the top 25 or 30 will be playing at the highest level versus 65 right now.




1) fine? s you point out comparing pro teams to college football is a faulty analogy. College football has a ready made fan base for each school. Those school connections are enough to make vast majority of sports fans not really care about a lot of other teams except for their own rivals and their own conferences. not many people ar invested in watching Ole Miss play Stanford if they don't have a connection to the schools?

linear tv models don't have enough coverage, and they ignore a lot of football, which is why streaming stepped in. Facebook livestreams college football games. Apple wants to move into college football. The streaming giants want content more than anything, content that drives subscriptions. They aren't going to overpay like linear tv does. we know direct to consumer streaming is going to pay less, but they aren't going to pass on smaller markets just because they wish they had the top markets.

2) on the contrary, OOC games are valuable given the playoffs, and even moreso given the coming restructuring of the playoffs. Current payouts for playoffs are (iirc) $70 million, and that number should triple easily. Getting more teams ranked higher is the goal for each conference to maximize income.

A league that bashes itself and gives its top teams L's means that their rankings will get hurt.
SEC and B1G would like to get as many teams ranked to qualify for the playoffs. Nobody wants to watch the MLS where damn near everybody qualifies for the playoffs. Folks want to see teams competing who have some claim to being the top teams, and their record is college football sells the playoffs.

This is moving toward more pro sports model, but it isn't going to eradicate college connections. I mean, have you seen how poorly backed semi-pro leagues are? Why does Triple A or G-League not have viewership of the top pro league? College football has to maintain its connections to universities otherwise they risk losing even more viewers because nobody wants to watch semi-pro teams on TV, and much less subscribe to premium streaming services to watch semi-pro sports.
Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.