Ten years ago I thought TX & OK would ultimately be in SEC. The other things - no.
Going after some ACC schools doesn't make sense to me if they really want to be a part of the B1G. They each know better what they want than the SEC does imo.
Lawyer theory on ACC teams moving to the SEC...
- Thread starter hmt5000
- Start date
Going after some ACC schools doesn't make sense to me if they really want to be a part of the B1G. They each know better what they want than the SEC does imo.
with streaming you are going to potentially have to sub to multiple providers to watch different conferences. We might need to have 2 to watch SEC games. So if you want to watch ACC or BiG you might need another 2 or 3. At what point do people just stick with their conf and skip the rest until playoffs?
It's why you make a really good point about locking up certain areas. Recruiting is a major function of keeping other conferences out of FL and SC. By adding 4 teams you can lock up 40+ recruits to your conference each year that won't play in another conf.
I M nearing the end, hopefully I won't be tasked with subscribing to multiple streaming services because I am not technically savvy and am as likely to end up streaming porn as SEC football, and have no one to help me. But I know that's the direction we are headed and people like me are just out of luck. Hate it, but time and age are undefeated and we all lose eventually. Sorry for the morbidpost, it's just progress is not always a good thing
Adding Cal & Stanford benefits ESPN and Notre Dame, don't see how it improves life for the rest of the ACC.
Now ESPN can schedule 10:30 pm est sat games. Alternate Cal & Stanford conference home games all season. Then gain another rivalry game to close the season in The Game.
Notre Dame can now count games with Cal & Stanford as part of their 5 games a yr ACC commitment. That frees up their scheduling.
Sucks for Clemson and FSU. I have no doubt ESPN will make them play on the road out to the left coast yearly.
Now ESPN can schedule 10:30 pm est sat games. Alternate Cal & Stanford conference home games all season. Then gain another rivalry game to close the season in The Game.
Notre Dame can now count games with Cal & Stanford as part of their 5 games a yr ACC commitment. That frees up their scheduling.
Sucks for Clemson and FSU. I have no doubt ESPN will make them play on the road out to the left coast yearly.
Yes and no. ND must rotate playing ACC teams. If ND were to count both games as ACC commitment in year one. They must play every other ACC once before they can count Cal and Stanford a second time.
If the three teams join the ACC that means 17 ACC teams that ND must play 5 per year. ND will be able to count CAL and Stan as their ACC commitment approximately every 4 years.
Currently, every ACC has two rivalry teams and rotate all others. I would imagine that Stan, Cal and SMU will be the rivalry match up to help offset travel. They will then rotate all other ACC opponents.
This is all based on the current scheduling process. Certainly not set in stone.
Last edited:
Won't adding them make it harder for those wanting to leave to ever leave? If so, there may not ever be enough votes to add those schools.
That’s why you have the 4 biggest football programs voting NOT to include Stanford, Cal, and SMU.
Clemson, FSU, UNC, and NCSt want out and know they are the most likely to find landing spots.
Well Reuters is reporting Disney in talks with Amazon to sell streaming rights to ESPN. No comment from either co and Reuters didn't elaborate... So who knows. The only number thrown out was ESPN getting $30 to $35 per subscriber. That seems like quite a hike. I hope that includes all espn channels and not just basics and then you have to add SECN.
Money man.
Money man.
I kind of understand SMU (maybe) given the rabid fan base and access to the state of Texas, BUT Cal and Stanford don’t even watch their OWN FB games. Why should the ACC expect anyone else to dial into the CA teams … and what value does it add to add schools that are indifferent to FB?
Walk away ACC…..walk away.
GBB!
I don't disagree with you at all. There was a reason the B10 didn't take these two from the West Coast.
I fail to understand why the move by the B10 to raid the PAC12 hasn't received more scrutiny. Just two years ago the B10 entered into a well publicized agreement with the ACC and PAC12. Then they just pi$$ed all over it and no one in the MSM has questioned their ethics or commitment to student athletes.
“Student-athletes have been and will remain the focal point of the Big Ten, ACC and PAC-12 Conferences” said Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren. “Today, through this alliance, we furthered our commitment to our student-athletes by prioritizing our academics and athletics value systems. We are creating opportunities for student-athletes to have elite competition and are taking the necessary steps to shape and stabilize the future of college athletics.”
University of Wisconsin Chancellor and Big Ten Conference Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) Chair Dr. Rebecca Blank:
“The Big Ten Conference has always prioritized academic excellence as well as athletic excellence for student-athletes. Today’s announcement reinforces the values of integrity, fairness and competitiveness among all members of this alliance and provides additional opportunities for our student-athletes to enhance their collegiate experience.”
Last edited:
Cal and Stanford football are both top 50 in viewing. Yeah, I was surprised too. From what I understand it's all about pushing the ACC network into new territory. I've seen it broken down on other sites and although it's a increase in revenue it's not going to be enough to keep FSU quiet. The only thing that's going to save the ACC is Notre Dame and a restructured contract. That's not happening.
You’re right…I looked at the list but get this…..Navy ranks 40th —better than both Cal and Stanford and a slew of existing ACC schools. . Perhaps the ACC should sign USNA and reclaim the MD/DC market (along with bringing in a school with top tier academics, Army Navy game, Navy ND game) before casting the net across the country.
Just a thought……
GBB!
I watched an SEC show the other day and they were talking about BRAND... One thing all this moving is doing... its destroying brands for those conf. The SEC, by keeping inside the footprint and culture, is keeping its brand.
The BiG retains some because they had the Rose Bowl tie in but its still weird to think of westcoast/midwest/eastcoast league.
I thought that was some good points when judging future money for each league.
The BiG retains some because they had the Rose Bowl tie in but its still weird to think of westcoast/midwest/eastcoast league.
I thought that was some good points when judging future money for each league.
VT is #1 in the DC market already.
What if Clemson and FSU left for the SEC. UNC, Duke and UVA(all AAU) left for the B10 and Everybody else including ND went to a newly formed BigEast under Fox. That's enough to break the GOR and everybody has a landing spot. VT,NCST,UofL,Pitt,Miami,ND,GT...maybe bring back WVU in a few years...that's some pretty decent football.
I'm wondering if the Amazon deal is to add the ACC network and SECN into one app? The money they are talking is insane if it doesn't include both... And if it includes both then why differentiate when most of us play cross conf anyway?....
You might end up with them rolling both conf together on tv to justify that $30/month price??? maybe?
Go ahead and add one more cross conf game per year and lose a D2 game. Money wise... it's a win. If Amazon is looking at commercial income... UK vs NC st is worth wayyyy more money than UK vs Miami of ohio.
ND doesnt have a vote and I think the only way they join as a full member is to get left out of all playoffs and tournaments. But who knows what their goal is.
It was widely reported 2 weeks ago when Stanford and Cal invite failed at the time the vote was 11-4, ND in favor.
They aren't full time members, their vote doesn't count, or didn't when they were voting to dissolve the conference. They can vote but it won't be in the official tally.
No, @JHB4UK is correct on this. Notre Dame is a voting member.
John Jenkins (Notre Dame President) has a seat on the ACC Board of Directors and Notre Dame is listed as a member in the ACC Constitution. If the ACC decides to extend an admission offer to a new school, it will be because 12 of 15 schools voted yes.
Then it changed since spring. What I read the vote to dissolve the ACC was 8-5 against plus ND voting to dissolve, but they are not a full member and their vote didn't count. Either that was incorrect or they were given the right to vote
No, it’s been that way for a few years. I can’t speak to what you read without a link, but they were either mistaken or you misread it.
I also doubt there was any vote taken on dissolving the ACC. There is no language in the ACC manual that governs dissolution of the conference, so there would likely be a bit of a legal fight over how that should happen if some schools wanted to dissolve.
If you saw an article referencing 8 votes, then they were probably speculating on the process for dissolving the conference based on North Carolina state laws. My understanding is that under North Carolina law, dissolution of a non-profit requires a simple majority vote. The ACC has 15 voting members (counting Notre Dame), so a majority vote would be 8 votes.
I certainly could have misread it, misunderstood it or a combination of things. But as recently as this month people have been surprised ND has full voting privileges, which they clearly do, because they can influence conference decisions, but aren't willing to become full members. ND appears to be a leader for Stanford and Cal becoming ACC schools.
But apparently the move to ad Stanford, Cal and SMU is losing some support and both parties are looking at some other options. But from what I understand ACC is wantingbto add teams and not include them in their media deal, From what I read Stanford was willing, not sure about the other 2. But group of 5 teams are going to want paid I would think. U
Last edited:
Cal and Stanford 30% revenue after a year
SMU 0% for 5yrs
Might as well contact Liberty too see if they would be willing to commit to a similar contract.
SMU 0% for 5yrs
Might as well contact Liberty too see if they would be willing to commit to a similar contract.
Rabid enough to pay the schools tv money for 5 yrs!! ACC giving SMU $0.00 if they join. $160M paid by fans!
If that ain't rabid brother I don't know what is!
If that ain't rabid brother I don't know what is!
They have the ability and will to field a top 10 team quickly. Look up the Pony Express. Now all of that is legal.
Their alumni raised $200million to pay their school while waiting on the new contract. Not a lot of teams can afford that.
