Speculation is circulating about potential shifts in college sports conferences. There is discussion about Utah possibly moving to the ACC despite its recent move to the Big 12, with some suggesting the ACC might be a better fit due to its ESPN network agreement and potential for…

— Dick Weiss (@HoopsWeiss) May 26, 2024

okaydo said:

---

Speculation is circulating about potential shifts in college sports conferences. There is discussion about Utah possibly moving to the ACC despite its recent move to the Big 12, with some suggesting the ACC might be a better fit due to its ESPN network agreement and potential for…

— Dick Weiss (@HoopsWeiss) May 26, 2024

---

I'd be happy with this move

How are they going to go anywhere? Didn't they just sign a deal with the Big 12?

okaydo said:

---

Speculation is circulating about potential shifts in college sports conferences. There is discussion about Utah possibly moving to the ACC despite its recent move to the Big 12, with some suggesting the ACC might be a better fit due to its ESPN network agreement and potential for…

— Dick Weiss (@HoopsWeiss) May 26, 2024

---

They can come if they give us some of their ACC tv money

Oh no. Somebody we can't beat.

sycasey said:

---

How are they going to go anywhere? Didn't they just sign a deal with the Big 12?

---

I remember there was something where Utah's agreement with the Big 12 allows them to separate without penalty any time before officially joining on July 1. I'll try to dig a referende to it up. Would cause ultimate chaos because schedules are already set for fall.


Here's the source that opens the door to speculation regarding Utah:

https://billfarley.substack.com/p/the-big-12s-rushed-deal-to-sign-colorado

Looks like they might have an out from the 99 year big 12 commitment, but that article says nothing about the TV Grant of Rights, which would be a bigger obstacle. (Maybe there is more in the actual PDFs of the agreement).

The ACC's contract should pay more than the Big 12's due to the extra money from the ACCN subscriptions, but with cable cutting that might dry up soon too. Pre covid, ESPN offered about the same deal to the P12 including selling the P12 net to them. I believe USC was pretty vocal in saying f no.

The timing on this is very weird.

Utah is a perennial football power thesis days (top 10 in post spring ESPN poll). Does the ACC/ESPN offer them a premium to come because it may throw cold water on FSU and Clemson departure possibly to Fox B1G, by promising them Utah on the schedule? Just spitballing because, again, the timing makes no sense.

Of they are looking for a big payday from the FSU/Clemson buy-out? Somebody tell me how this makes sense now?

Anarchistbear said:

---

Oh no. Somebody we can't beat.

---

Did you forget the goal line stand?

Anarchistbear said:

---

Oh no. Somebody we can't beat.

---

Utah hasn't beaten Cal in the Bay Area since 1964 (the only time they've done it).

It's been widely speculated that the Utes didn't really want the Big 12, and that they don't want to be in the same conference as BYU.

But AFAIK they couldn't easily exit the Big 12 unless the conference wanted to let them leave.

Wow, is this just wild speculation? If not, it's crazy times again.

Utes expecting a full share, funded by ESPN.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Utes expecting a full share, funded by ESPN.

---

ESPN is funding a full share for us too.

The question is, how much of that will the ACC give to the Utes? Utah at least has leverage, we didn't. I could maybe see Utah getting $30 million, essentially what they are getting from the Big-12, and giving up $10 million to buy in? I'm not sure the other ACC members would find that attractive enough.

calumnus said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Utes expecting a full share, funded by ESPN.

---

ESPN is funding a full share for us too.

The question is, how much of that will the ACC give to the Utes? Utah at least has leverage, we didn't. I could see Utah getting $20 million, essentially what they are getting from the Big-12.

---

Utah is getting a full share of media money from the b12 which averages $31 million/team/yr for the 2025-2030 football seasons. They are in a position of strength contrasted with where Cal and Stanford were last summer.

That said, when I clicked though the full PDFs from FOIA of Utah, they included a signed GOR, so unless there's a weird out of the GOR, I think they are stuck even though they could potentially leave w/o the exit fee right now.

Utah doesn't bring much to the table, and the ACC is a poor fit for them compared to the B12.

Given how hard it was to get Cal and Stanford and SMU into the ACC and that they had to take reduced shares, I don't know why Utah would find it any easier to get more than what they're getting now.

<IF> Utah is able to get out of their GORs and jumps to the ACC (big Ifs), that would open up a Big-12 slot.

Would the B-12 go after:
1. San Diego State
2. Oregon State
3. Washington State
4. SMU(?)
5. Other?

sycasey said:

---

Given how hard it was to get Cal and Stanford and SMU into the ACC and that they had to take reduced shares, I don't know why Utah would find it any easier to get more than what they're getting now.

---

Except now Cal, Stanford and SMU get a vote. I'm sure it would just piss off FSU and Clemson even more.

Cal88 said:

---

Utah doesn't bring much to the table, and the ACC is a poor fit for them compared to the B12.

---

Is that you Director Knowlton? You mean other than a top tier football program with sell out attendance and high TV ratings, and an athletic program also finished with a few million dollar surplus? They also are a poor fit with the ACC from a geography perspective as well. Sorta like Cal and Furd, but with a good football program and a solvent athletic department.

If and when it finally becomes the two mega conferences that everyone seems to predict is coming, Utah has a spot waiting since they bring to the table what matters, and Cal is left behind. Not that I like that, but at least most of us understand what drives conference realignment these days.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Given how hard it was to get Cal and Stanford and SMU into the ACC and that they had to take reduced shares, I don't know why Utah would find it any easier to get more than what they're getting now.

---

Except now Cal, Stanford and SMU get a vote. I'm sure it would just piss off FSU and Clemson even more.

---

Cal, Stanford, and SMU would be three votes against giving Utah a full share of ACC revenue, unless Cal, Stanford, and SMU were bumped up to a full share at the same time that Utah joined.

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Given how hard it was to get Cal and Stanford and SMU into the ACC and that they had to take reduced shares, I don't know why Utah would find it any easier to get more than what they're getting now.

---

Except now Cal, Stanford and SMU get a vote. I'm sure it would just piss off FSU and Clemson even more.

---

Cal, Stanford, and SMU would be three votes against giving Utah a full share of ACC revenue, unless Cal, Stanford, and SMU were bumped up to a full share at the same time that Utah joined.

---

Utah would almost certainly not get a full share. They would try to get what they are getting from the Big-12 ($30 million?) and kick in $10 million to the pot. Depending on how badly they want ACC vs Big-12 they would kick in more.

They also might try to open up negotiations with the B1G, to go there at partial share (like Oregon and Washington negotiated).

All this assumes they have an out from the Big-12.

If Cal, Stanford and SMU voted against Utah due to sour grapes from having to beg in due to not having other options, that would be petty. But maybe we could get some Calimony from Utah out of it too?

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Given how hard it was to get Cal and Stanford and SMU into the ACC and that they had to take reduced shares, I don't know why Utah would find it any easier to get more than what they're getting now.

---

Except now Cal, Stanford and SMU get a vote. I'm sure it would just piss off FSU and Clemson even more.

---

Cal, Stanford, and SMU would be three votes against giving Utah a full share of ACC revenue, unless Cal, Stanford, and SMU were bumped up to a full share at the same time that Utah joined.

---

This. Which is why I don't know why Utah would give up the Big 12 share they are getting now. Not likely the ACC's reduced share will be better.

some of u need to read the monster

Quote:

---

If Cal, Stanford and SMU voted against Utah due to sour grapes from having to beg in due to not having other options, that would be petty. But maybe we could get some Calimony from Utah out of it too?

---

But that would be some pettiness that I would certainly get behind.

The only way I see this happening is if the ACC is, once again, trying to buy some insurance, if FSU, Clemson and UNC leave.

^ wrong

ColoradoBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

How are they going to go anywhere? Didn't they just sign a deal with the Big 12?

---

I remember there was something where Utah's agreement with the Big 12 allows them to separate without penalty any time before officially joining on July 1. I'll try to dig a referende to it up. Would cause ultimate chaos because schedules are already set for fall.


Here's the source that opens the door to speculation regarding Utah:

https://billfarley.substack.com/p/the-big-12s-rushed-deal-to-sign-colorado

Looks like they might have an out from the 99 year big 12 commitment, but that article says nothing about the TV Grant of Rights, which would be a bigger obstacle. (Maybe there is more in the actual PDFs of the agreement).

The ACC's contract should pay more than the Big 12's due to the extra money from the ACCN subscriptions, but with cable cutting that might dry up soon too. Pre covid, ESPN offered about the same deal to the P12 including selling the P12 net to them. I believe USC was pretty vocal in saying f no.

---

I think cable cutting might be last decades buzzword.

Now that streaming is trying to buy sports rights, costs are going to skyrocket and like cable, but worse, you pay for like 5 services at the price of 200, with ads, but no real sellers, so you get the same 6 ads 30 times an hour instead of a variety of ads. Thankfully with the targeting that is coming, you will get the same ad 30 times an hour instead.

Was on the ACC boards today. Many folks believe this is a real thing and there is also a rumor aTm is talking to the B1G.

This seems ludicrous but it's the same school that had two donors fund the Jimbo buyout. And they *really* hate Texas.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Utah doesn't bring much to the table, and the ACC is a poor fit for them compared to the B12.

---

Is that you Director Knowlton? You mean other than a top tier football program with sell out attendance and high TV ratings, and an athletic program also finished with a few million dollar surplus? They also are a poor fit with the ACC from a geography perspective as well. Sorta like Cal and Furd, but with a good football program and a solvent athletic department.

If and when it finally becomes the two mega conferences that everyone seems to predict is coming, Utah has a spot waiting since they bring to the table what matters, and Cal is left behind. Not that I like that, but at least most of us understand what drives conference realignment these days.

---

Utah is not a top tier football program, they have performed well lately but haven't fully shed their image as an upstart program. They are also in a pretty small market, and the least attractive former P12 South program.

I can't figure out why they would be interested in the ACC, all their neighbors are in the B12, which is the grouping of the best programs from the southern Mountain and Central time zones.

95bears said:

---

Was on the ACC boards today. Many folks believe this is a real thing and there is also a rumor aTm is talking to the B1G.

This seems ludicrous but it's the same school that had two donors fund the Jimbo buyout. And they *really* hate Texas.

---

That is interesting about Tam, and yes it really doesn't make sense. I would think the B1G would jump at the opportunity to both get into the state of Texas and take from the SEC, but Texas was shopping for a new home recently and I have to think they must have talked with the B1G. Texas seems more like a B1G school than Tam which seems to fit better as an SEC school.

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Utah doesn't bring much to the table, and the ACC is a poor fit for them compared to the B12.

---

Is that you Director Knowlton? You mean other than a top tier football program with sell out attendance and high TV ratings, and an athletic program also finished with a few million dollar surplus? They also are a poor fit with the ACC from a geography perspective as well. Sorta like Cal and Furd, but with a good football program and a solvent athletic department.

If and when it finally becomes the two mega conferences that everyone seems to predict is coming, Utah has a spot waiting since they bring to the table what matters, and Cal is left behind. Not that I like that, but at least most of us understand what drives conference realignment these days.

---

Utah is not a top tier football program, they have performed well lately but haven't fully shed their image as an upstart program. They are also in a pretty small market, and the least attractive former P12 South program.

---

LOL. If you actually think that Utah is just an "upstart" and that they are less valuable than Colorado, Arizona, and Arizona State, then you have just outed yourself as a BYU fan.

One of your recent links keeps crashing my browser's ability to read your thread. I've tried on both Chrome and Safari and have the same issue

TruffleShuffle said:

---

One of your recent links keeps crashing my browser's ability to read your thread. I've tried on both Chrome and Safari and have the same issue

---

Dude posts the same stuff twice. And it's not reliable info anyway.

Alkiadt said:

---

TruffleShuffle said:

---

One of your recent links keeps crashing my browser's ability to read your thread. I've tried on both Chrome and Safari and have the same issue

---

Dude posts the same stuff twice. And it's not reliable info anyway.

---

Racist.

BearSD said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Utah doesn't bring much to the table, and the ACC is a poor fit for them compared to the B12.

---

Is that you Director Knowlton? You mean other than a top tier football program with sell out attendance and high TV ratings, and an athletic program also finished with a few million dollar surplus? They also are a poor fit with the ACC from a geography perspective as well. Sorta like Cal and Furd, but with a good football program and a solvent athletic department.

If and when it finally becomes the two mega conferences that everyone seems to predict is coming, Utah has a spot waiting since they bring to the table what matters, and Cal is left behind. Not that I like that, but at least most of us understand what drives conference realignment these days.

---

Utah is not a top tier football program, they have performed well lately but haven't fully shed their image as an upstart program. They are also in a pretty small market, and the least attractive former P12 South program.

---

LOL. If you actually think that Utah is just an "upstart" and that they are less valuable than Colorado, Arizona, and Arizona State, then you have just outed yourself as a BYU fan.

---

Utah was brought into the Pac-10 as a sidekick for Colorado, which was the main target for that expansion. And yes, UofA, ASU and CU are all more valuable programs than Utah, with longer histories and larger markets.

Cal88 said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Utah doesn't bring much to the table, and the ACC is a poor fit for them compared to the B12.

---

Is that you Director Knowlton? You mean other than a top tier football program with sell out attendance and high TV ratings, and an athletic program also finished with a few million dollar surplus? They also are a poor fit with the ACC from a geography perspective as well. Sorta like Cal and Furd, but with a good football program and a solvent athletic department.

If and when it finally becomes the two mega conferences that everyone seems to predict is coming, Utah has a spot waiting since they bring to the table what matters, and Cal is left behind. Not that I like that, but at least most of us understand what drives conference realignment these days.

---

Utah is not a top tier football program, they have performed well lately but haven't fully shed their image as an upstart program. They are also in a pretty small market, and the least attractive former P12 South program.

---

LOL. If you actually think that Utah is just an "upstart" and that they are less valuable than Colorado, Arizona, and Arizona State, then you have just outed yourself as a BYU fan.

---

Utah was brought into the Pac-10 as a sidekick for Colorado, which was the main target for that expansion. And yes, UofA, ASU and CU are all more valuable programs than Utah, with longer histories and larger markets.

---

All four started playing football in the 1890s and Utah was a year or two earlier than Arizona. However, if you're going to claim superiority due to a longer history based on a few years 130 years ago, you're being fairly pedantic. I agree that Utah is in the smallest media market.