(08-07-2023 02:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:40 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I get why Stanford and Cal would do this, but how does this help the ACC in any way?

Getting them on half shares and maybe getting the ACC Network on cable providers in the Bay area. That might increase everyone else in the leagues payout by a few million a year.

No you give them full shares since their travel will be bad and you soften it with 2 G5 adds out west (SMU and maybe gamble on UNLV and throw Vegas into the CCG mix) and give them the partial shares.

Part of me thinks the ACC should be ready to sue ESPN if two Bay area schools considered cornerstones to a former major conference doesn’t fetch anything more than pro-rata rates. It’s so literally hard to see how the conference or any ACC school would have signed such a deal in the first place.

(08-07-2023 02:41 PM)hburg Wrote:  Why only Cal and Stanford?

Uh, because the others bring nothing.

(08-07-2023 02:44 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  Makes no sense unless you have a west coast division.

ACC is about 3 months late on this move. Complete failure that it wasn’t plan A from all parties.

(08-07-2023 03:12 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  Nothing says Atlantic Coast like Stanford and Cal-Berkeley.

Nothing says Big XII like XVI

Nothing says Southeastern like Texas

Nothing says Big Ten like Eighteen



We're really going here lol

(08-07-2023 02:53 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  FSU has to be celebrating. Any change to conference membership would require execution of new GoRs as the current GoR contemplated the conference membership as it currently stands. New members (or loss of members) would open a HUGE loophole.

The media went through this last week, it's not true.

(08-07-2023 02:55 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:53 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  FSU has to be celebrating. Any change to conference membership would require execution of new GoRs as the current GoR contemplated the conference membership as it currently stands. New members (or loss of members) would open a HUGE loophole.

The ACC isn't adding Stanford and Cal if it opens up a loophole for FSU and Clemson to leave. Let's be real now, that would be insanely stupid. The AcC has some good law schools doesn't it?

Right, there's no loophole. ADs and/or McMurphy addressed it last week.

(08-07-2023 02:53 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  FSU has to be celebrating. Any change to conference membership would require execution of new GoRs as the current GoR contemplated the conference membership as it currently stands. New members (or loss of members) would open a HUGE loophole.

No it doesn't. New members just sign the existing GOR.

(08-07-2023 03:13 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 03:11 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 03:09 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 03:08 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  This reads like a set-up for a quick pivot that Thamel is quite proficient at delivering.

Like last week for example:



A few hours later, the Ducks (and Huskies) had jumped in the B1G boat, while the Wildcats (along with the Sun Devils and Utes) confirmed they were on their way to the Big XII.

Back in February, the Big XII's internal discord was in the news:



Six days later, the Sooners and Horns were headed to the SEC for '24 after all.

Why would the ACC want Cal and Stanford to join?

How again is that gonna encourage FSU and Clemson to stick around?

Is ESPN gonna kick in more dollars to the ACC contract for the two Bay Area schools?

JMO, it's either the nothingest of nothing burgers ... or a set-up for some kind of move by the Big Ten or Big 12 that further destabilizes the Pac-12

Poison pill. Two more schools that could vote to dissolve the ACC.

Lol why would they do that? If anything it strengthens against a vote because they know what they're joining.

Pete: ESPN is obligated to pay pro-rata, how do you not know that?

Because maybe the B1G takes them if blowing up the ACC nets ND + FSU or something. Idk, but if you think either Cali or Stanford would care about the ACC vs reunited with the LA schools, well good luck with that.

You don't think there has been a conversation with FOX and the Big Ten about this already? Oregon and Washington added new states and are still getting an under 50% share. They can't just print money, and the Big Ten membership ain't taking a pay cut.

If Stanford and Cal are having legit conversations with the ACC at this point, there is probably some smoke.

(08-07-2023 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:53 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  FSU has to be celebrating. Any change to conference membership would require execution of new GoRs as the current GoR contemplated the conference membership as it currently stands. New members (or loss of members) would open a HUGE loophole.

No it doesn't. New members just sign the existing GOR.

Yeah, iirc, new membership would have voided (or at least suspended) the current/soon to be former Big XII GoR. The ACC’s was built to take on and keep going, but with these curious “look-in” windows.

(08-07-2023 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:53 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  FSU has to be celebrating. Any change to conference membership would require execution of new GoRs as the current GoR contemplated the conference membership as it currently stands. New members (or loss of members) would open a HUGE loophole.

No it doesn't. New members just sign the existing GOR.

Correct.

In fact, the order of operations is that a school signs the GOR *first* and THEN expansion happens.

I’m not sure where this Internet myth got perpetuated that the GOR is somehow opened up with expansion, but it’s not the case at all.

I don't get it from ACC's perspective. I selfishly didn't want them in the Big 12.

I can kind of understand it from Stanford/Cals side as they are desperate but boy outside 1 fb game and 2 bball games a year that traveling is consistently 5+ hour direct flights at best.

Cal & Stanford would seem to fit in better with the ACC than they would with the MWC or XII. I could see why this would work.

(08-07-2023 03:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:53 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  FSU has to be celebrating. Any change to conference membership would require execution of new GoRs as the current GoR contemplated the conference membership as it currently stands. New members (or loss of members) would open a HUGE loophole.

No it doesn't. New members just sign the existing GOR.

Correct.

In fact, the order of operations is that a school signs the GOR *first* and THEN expansion happens.

I’m not sure where this Internet myth got perpetuated that the GOR is somehow opened up with expansion, but it’s not the case at all.

Correct. But it won’t happen. It’s always one of the same two reasons or both. The 3/4 majority votes aren’t there or the invited school isn’t interested in signing the GOR. Same as it ever was.

So if Stanford and Cal to the ACC goes down all 8 of the PAC 12 will be making around that $30+M mark

USC and UCLA will be making about double that in the Big 10 while Oregon St and Washington State will be making G5 levels

That's a lot of work that went down to give Oregon St and Washington State shares to USC and UCLA

(08-07-2023 03:31 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  I don't get it from ACC's perspective. I selfishly didn't want them in the Big 12.

I can kind of understand it from Stanford/Cals side as they are desperate but boy outside 1 fb game and 2 bball games a year that traveling is consistently 5+ hour direct flights at best.

I would just take their football and let them join the Big West for everything else. Football is where the money is at

(08-07-2023 03:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 03:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:53 PM)JamesHowell Wrote:  FSU has to be celebrating. Any change to conference membership would require execution of new GoRs as the current GoR contemplated the conference membership as it currently stands. New members (or loss of members) would open a HUGE loophole.

No it doesn't. New members just sign the existing GOR.

Correct.

In fact, the order of operations is that a school signs the GOR *first* and THEN expansion happens.

I’m not sure where this Internet myth got perpetuated that the GOR is somehow opened up with expansion, but it’s not the case at all.

From FSU folks

(08-07-2023 02:40 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I get why Stanford and Cal would do this, but how does this help the ACC in any way?

I think people on here really don't get how academics think.

Cal and ESPECIALLY Stanford are academic superstars. Stanford is a true peer of schools like UNC and Virginia (who are at the upper echelons of the public universities) and Duke (as a private).

They are more like the other ACC schools than not other than geography.

Why would this make sense?

1) It adds late night inventory to the ACC networks - those Wake at Stanford or Pitt at Cal games, while not that interesting most years, will air after 10EDT and be the only P5 football game on in that time slot.

2) It adds an entirely new market. Sure, Cal and Stanford aren't the end-all-be-all in San Francisco/Oakland, but now there's a pretty large metro area (#13) that will add the ACC Network.

3) Recruiting. Bay area is now open for recruitment by the ACC. It's not a lot but its something. And... exposure. The West Coast teams don't get the exposure to most of the population in prime time/EDT - they will now. That exposure means if Stanford is really good in basketball they may actually get ranked/seen, instead of playing UCLA you get to play UNC and Duke. Not bad to sell to a west coast basketball prospect who wants to stay home. In fact, would I rather play for the B1G teams or the ACC team if my goal is exposure?

4) For Cal and Stanford, just about anything is better than the other options - let's say they get half-shares -that $15million or so is gonna be better than anything they get through any other option.

5) When the 12-team playoff starts, the PAC loses its spot but the ACC keeps theirs. Guess what? That ACC schedule is full of creampuffs in football, and the right hire could propel one of these schools into the top 20.

6) For the ACC, yeah they don't wanna lose FSU, Clemson, UNC or VA - but this provides a core to build around.

7) Travel? Get creative. Hit Louisville, Cininatti and Pitt in a week-long road trip this year, skip it next. You can probably take care of your road games for Olympic sports in 2 week long trips every year. In football, you play all your non-cons against nearby competition, if its a year for 5 conf road games, you have 4 trips... manageable.

8) Kind of a fun trip for ACC kids to get to go to every year. You can imagine in basketball, teams flying out every other year to hit Cal on Sat and Stanford on Monday.

(08-07-2023 03:17 PM)krux Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 02:40 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  I get why Stanford and Cal would do this, but how does this help the ACC in any way?

Getting them on half shares and maybe getting the ACC Network on cable providers in the Bay area. That might increase everyone else in the leagues payout by a few million a year.

No you give them full shares since their travel will be bad and you soften it with 2 G5 adds out west (SMU and maybe gamble on UNLV and throw Vegas into the CCG mix) and give them the partial shares.

UNLV would never get a look. Maybe Tulane but no Running with Rebels.

As I posted previously and related to Cal and Stanford (and this would apply, hypothetically, to UCLA and USC): The two schools will do everything possible to avoiding sharing a league primarily composed of MWC and/or AAC members. As a Memphis fan, I take no offense at that.