Andrea Adelson of ESPN reports:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ealignment

Well now Florida State has no leverage to leave before the 2025 season as do neither of the other three schools who voted against Cal and Stanford. How much are they really gaining now blocking Cal/Stanford out of spite? They found out they have no bargaining power against the rest of the ACC. The other ACC schools aren't going to let FSU or anyone else out of the GOR early or change the distribution to favor them because they're not stupid.

(08-17-2023 06:40 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Well now Florida State has no leverage to leave before the 2025 season as do neither of the other three schools who voted against Cal and Stanford. How much are they really gaining now blocking Cal/Stanford out of spite? They found out they have no bargaining power against the rest of the ACC. The other ACC schools aren't going to let FSU or anyone else out of the GOR early or change the distribution to favor them because they're not stupid.

It wasn’t out of spite. StanCal don’t help financially, have no history with ACC schools (aside from a certain non-football member, to a limited degree) and they’re on the other side of the country.

“Three others” = UNC, NCSU and Clemson

Quote:But a source with knowledge of the discussions said the Big Ten did not have serious conversations about adding Florida State, and its top priority remains Notre Dame.

Some commenters have pointed this line out. I find it interesting.

Some will read this and suggest the Big Ten doesn't want Florida State. I wouldn't go that direction with it. We can simply take it at face value that the Big Ten is revolving their expansion plans around their white whale...Notre Dame. Everything they're doing at this point is a cog in that plan.

Secondly, we can assume Florida State has not pressed the issue. The statement is framed from the Big Ten perspective, but it says nothing about FSU's interest in being discussed. I maintain they would prefer to be in the SEC for several reasons. Long term, I think FSU and Clemson will be in the SEC as it just makes too much sense for everyone.

Also found this tidbit quite fascinating:

Quote:With Oregon and Washington headed to the Big Ten, and Arizona, Arizona State and Utah officially joining the Big 12, the Pac-12 had only four schools remaining. The ACC conversations about Cal and Stanford grew more serious. From an outside perspective, there seemed to be few benefits, especially for a league that needed two things desperately: more revenue and a boost to its football reputation. Neither school provided that. Add in travel to the West Coast for only two teams, and it made little sense.

Except to the presidents.

"Cal and Stanford were probably from the presidents' perspective a better target than anybody else in the Pac-12 just because of the academic reputation," one administrator said. "The fact that Oregon and Washington left, OK that's fine, but these are two pretty good brands, so how do we integrate them into the league?"

This is proof positive that some people in high places don't deserve to be there. Or at least they need to do a better job of delegating. Apparently one(at least) of these Presidents literally believed Cal and Stanford were the best targets despite the fact they were basically last on the board.

Just as a side note, if anyone out there is shocked that Stanford and Cal haven't found a home yet then you need to reevaluate your understanding. There is not one thing shocking about that. I could have conceivably seen the Big Ten take them in order to tie the room together, but there's no strong motivation to do that if they don't have to take them.

I repeat...the fact that Stanford and Cal have not been snapped up yet is not shocking. If this surprises you then go back to the drawing board because you don't know as much as you think you do.

More to the point, if this is how ACC leadership thinks then yes, I can fully understand why Florida State wants out yesterday. This is also the limited scope of thinking that got the PAC 12 into their quicksand-like death spiral.

(08-17-2023 06:40 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Well now Florida State has no leverage to leave before the 2025 season as do neither of the other three schools who voted against Cal and Stanford. How much are they really gaining now blocking Cal/Stanford out of spite? They found out they have no bargaining power against the rest of the ACC. The other ACC schools aren't going to let FSU or anyone else out of the GOR early or change the distribution to favor them because they're not stupid.

Stanford and Cal do not add enough to warrant inclusion. There is no "spite", it just does not make sense.

Again the ACC schools banked on ND adding a 6th game and other wild ideas that will help close the gap. But alas, all of these ideas are just band-aids on a gunshot wound, the ACC is slowly bleeding out.

(08-17-2023 06:49 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

Quote:But a source with knowledge of the discussions said the Big Ten did not have serious conversations about adding Florida State, and its top priority remains Notre Dame.

Some commenters have pointed this line out. I find it interesting.

Some will read this and suggest the Big Ten doesn't want Florida State. I wouldn't go that direction with it. We can simply take it at face value that the Big Ten is revolving their expansion plans around their white whale...Notre Dame. Everything they're doing at this point is a cog in that plan.

Secondly, we can assume Florida State has not pressed the issue. The statement is framed from the Big Ten perspective, but it says nothing about FSU's interest in being discussed. I maintain they would prefer to be in the SEC for several reasons. Long term, I think FSU and Clemson will be in the SEC as it just makes too much sense for everyone.

If the Big Ten really cared about Notre Dame and wouldn't add Florida State to save room for Notre Dame, they shouldn't have added Washington and Oregon. I would think Notre Dame would rather be in a conference with FSU than Washington and Oregon and would rather travel to Florida than Seattle and Eugene. When's the last time Notre Dame played a game in the Pacific Northwest?

In terms of consolidation it would probably make more sense for ACC to add PSU, MD and Rutgers, then have the Big Ten add ND, Stan and Cal.

(08-17-2023 06:47 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 06:40 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Well now Florida State has no leverage to leave before the 2025 season as do neither of the other three schools who voted against Cal and Stanford. How much are they really gaining now blocking Cal/Stanford out of spite? They found out they have no bargaining power against the rest of the ACC. The other ACC schools aren't going to let FSU or anyone else out of the GOR early or change the distribution to favor them because they're not stupid.

It wasn’t out of spite. StanCal don’t help financially, have no history with ACC schools (aside from a certain non-football member, to a limited degree) and they’re on the other side of the country.

“Three others” = UNC, NCSU and Clemson

Yeah, I agree.

It's funny to listen to the local sports talk guys blast the B1G and B12 for creating these cross-country conferences one day (they are just chasing $ at the expense of student athletes!) and then blast the ACC for not adding two California schools the next (why aren't they chasing cash?!).

It doesnt make financial sense to add STanford and Cal because ESPN would only get the added benefit of the state once, not twice. Once the media deal is up, you basically have more mouths to feed, while on the field performance is horrible. (ACC needs to add really good football , because if they lose clemson and fsu, they are no longer P5. )

SMU was smart to insert themselves to come in with Stanford, but they should have started spending some of that money 5 years fielding better products. Again, the top of the acc do not want any more low performing freeloaders in the conference.

(08-17-2023 06:49 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

Quote:But a source with knowledge of the discussions said the Big Ten did not have serious conversations about adding Florida State, and its top priority remains Notre Dame.

Some commenters have pointed this line out. I find it interesting.

Some will read this and suggest the Big Ten doesn't want Florida State. I wouldn't go that direction with it. We can simply take it at face value that the Big Ten is revolving their expansion plans around their white whale...Notre Dame. Everything they're doing at this point is a cog in that plan.

Secondly, we can assume Florida State has not pressed the issue. The statement is framed from the Big Ten perspective, but it says nothing about FSU's interest in being discussed. I maintain they would prefer to be in the SEC for several reasons. Long term, I think FSU and Clemson will be in the SEC as it just makes too much sense for everyone.

Also found this tidbit quite fascinating:

Quote:With Oregon and Washington headed to the Big Ten, and Arizona, Arizona State and Utah officially joining the Big 12, the Pac-12 had only four schools remaining. The ACC conversations about Cal and Stanford grew more serious. From an outside perspective, there seemed to be few benefits, especially for a league that needed two things desperately: more revenue and a boost to its football reputation. Neither school provided that. Add in travel to the West Coast for only two teams, and it made little sense.

Except to the presidents.

"Cal and Stanford were probably from the presidents' perspective a better target than anybody else in the Pac-12 just because of the academic reputation," one administrator said. "The fact that Oregon and Washington left, OK that's fine, but these are two pretty good brands, so how do we integrate them into the league?"

This is proof positive that some people in high places don't deserve to be there. Or at least they need to do a better job of delegating. Apparently one(at least) of these Presidents literally believed Cal and Stanford were the best targets despite the fact they were basically last on the board.

Just as a side note, if anyone out there is shocked that Stanford and Cal haven't found a home yet then you need to reevaluate your understanding. There is not one thing shocking about that. I could have conceivably seen the Big Ten take them in order to tie the room together, but there's no strong motivation to do that if they don't have to take them.

I repeat...the fact that Stanford and Cal have not been snapped up yet is not shocking. If this surprises you then go back to the drawing board because you don't know as much as you think you do.

More to the point, if this is how ACC leadership thinks then yes, I can fully understand why Florida State wants out yesterday. This is also the limited scope of thinking that got the PAC 12 into their quicksand-like death spiral.

I guess this argument comes down to the fundamental philosophy of a university president. You are arguing it is all about a media payment for football. I believe a university president has other priorities that make that payout quite minuscule. Perhaps academic partnerships with one of the BEST universities on the planet is floating around in their mind. A favor for a favor.

You are NOT thinking like a university president, something I’ve preached here for over a decade.

(08-17-2023 08:22 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  It doesnt make financial sense to add STanford and Cal because ESPN would only get the added benefit of the state once, not twice. Once the media deal is up, you basically have more mouths to feed, while on the field performance is horrible. (ACC needs to add really good football , because if they lose clemson and fsu, they are no longer P5. )

SMU was smart to insert themselves to come in with Stanford, but they should have started spending some of that money 5 years fielding better products. Again, the top of the acc do not want any more low performing freeloaders in the conference.

There's no stopping the ACC death spiral. It's just a matter of when and where all of the schools land/crash. No high value school is going jump aboard to save the day.

Per article, the expansion is on "life support". It never made financial sense to add Stanford and Cal.

Stanford and Cal leadership often rhapsodize about how much they care about their "student/athletes" but were quite willing to subject them to travel hardships. Many ACC Presidents ignored the financial and travel drawbacks and yet still wished to invite Cal and Stanford. Obviously, the interests of the top leaders (academic status and prestige) do not align with the interests of fans and donors (focused on winning), and athletes (minimizing disruptions).

A lesson to all. Fans and particularly donors need to put President's feet to the fire and hold them accountable to the common good and not to boosting the President's ego.

When will Stanford and Cal give up the ghost and go to the next step (e.g., independence, PAC4 rebuild)? Waiting long is not feasible.

(08-17-2023 08:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 06:49 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

Quote:But a source with knowledge of the discussions said the Big Ten did not have serious conversations about adding Florida State, and its top priority remains Notre Dame.

Some commenters have pointed this line out. I find it interesting.

Some will read this and suggest the Big Ten doesn't want Florida State. I wouldn't go that direction with it. We can simply take it at face value that the Big Ten is revolving their expansion plans around their white whale...Notre Dame. Everything they're doing at this point is a cog in that plan.

Secondly, we can assume Florida State has not pressed the issue. The statement is framed from the Big Ten perspective, but it says nothing about FSU's interest in being discussed. I maintain they would prefer to be in the SEC for several reasons. Long term, I think FSU and Clemson will be in the SEC as it just makes too much sense for everyone.

Also found this tidbit quite fascinating:

Quote:With Oregon and Washington headed to the Big Ten, and Arizona, Arizona State and Utah officially joining the Big 12, the Pac-12 had only four schools remaining. The ACC conversations about Cal and Stanford grew more serious. From an outside perspective, there seemed to be few benefits, especially for a league that needed two things desperately: more revenue and a boost to its football reputation. Neither school provided that. Add in travel to the West Coast for only two teams, and it made little sense.

Except to the presidents.

"Cal and Stanford were probably from the presidents' perspective a better target than anybody else in the Pac-12 just because of the academic reputation," one administrator said. "The fact that Oregon and Washington left, OK that's fine, but these are two pretty good brands, so how do we integrate them into the league?"

This is proof positive that some people in high places don't deserve to be there. Or at least they need to do a better job of delegating. Apparently one(at least) of these Presidents literally believed Cal and Stanford were the best targets despite the fact they were basically last on the board.

Just as a side note, if anyone out there is shocked that Stanford and Cal haven't found a home yet then you need to reevaluate your understanding. There is not one thing shocking about that. I could have conceivably seen the Big Ten take them in order to tie the room together, but there's no strong motivation to do that if they don't have to take them.

I repeat...the fact that Stanford and Cal have not been snapped up yet is not shocking. If this surprises you then go back to the drawing board because you don't know as much as you think you do.

More to the point, if this is how ACC leadership thinks then yes, I can fully understand why Florida State wants out yesterday. This is also the limited scope of thinking that got the PAC 12 into their quicksand-like death spiral.

I guess this argument comes down to the fundamental philosophy of a university president. You are arguing it is all about a media payment for football. I believe a university president has other priorities that make that payout quite minuscule. Perhaps academic partnerships with one of the BEST universities on the planet is floating around in their mind. A favor for a favor.

You are NOT thinking like a university president, something I’ve preached here for over a decade.

Then perhaps the presidents shouldn’t be making these decisions then

(08-17-2023 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(08-17-2023 06:49 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

Quote:But a source with knowledge of the discussions said the Big Ten did not have serious conversations about adding Florida State, and its top priority remains Notre Dame.

Some commenters have pointed this line out. I find it interesting.

Some will read this and suggest the Big Ten doesn't want Florida State. I wouldn't go that direction with it. We can simply take it at face value that the Big Ten is revolving their expansion plans around their white whale...Notre Dame. Everything they're doing at this point is a cog in that plan.

Secondly, we can assume Florida State has not pressed the issue. The statement is framed from the Big Ten perspective, but it says nothing about FSU's interest in being discussed. I maintain they would prefer to be in the SEC for several reasons. Long term, I think FSU and Clemson will be in the SEC as it just makes too much sense for everyone.

If the Big Ten really cared about Notre Dame and wouldn't add Florida State to save room for Notre Dame, they shouldn't have added Washington and Oregon. I would think Notre Dame would rather be in a conference with FSU than Washington and Oregon and would rather travel to Florida than Seattle and Eugene. When's the last time Notre Dame played a game in the Pacific Northwest?

I think Washington and Oregon were added b/c the Big 10 knows that it's made a long term commitment to the west coast. You can't leave USC and UCLA out there on an island and expect them to play 8 conference games traveling 2-3 time zones to the east. Set their brand name and market aside for a second.
That's scheduling suicide basically. They'd have some major problems competing. If you're the Big 10 you WANT USC especially to be one of the top 3 or 4 programs in the conference. I'm not familiar w/ how the Big 10 handles non-revenue scheduling but I can only imagine it's going to be a lot worse for them. Basketball is going to be brutal.

The Big 12 left West Virginia on an island for a decade, why couldn't the Big 10 leave UCLA and USC out west by themselves (with each other, more than the Big 12 did with WVU)? And if the Big Ten wanted West Coast presence, Cal/Stanford are smarter and in a way better area and closer to LA. Supposedly USC didn't even want Oregon in the Big Ten and they're not really close to Los Angeles either. Oregon and Washington are only valuable if they win, otherwise they are more Western crap.

(08-17-2023 09:21 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The Big 12 left West Virginia on an island for a decade, why couldn't the Big 10 leave UCLA and USC out west by themselves (with each other, more than the Big 12 did with WVU)? And if the Big Ten wanted West Coast presence, Cal/Stanford are smarter and in a way better area and closer to LA. Supposedly USC didn't even want Oregon in the Big Ten and they're not really close to Los Angeles either. Oregon and Washington are only valuable if they win, otherwise they are more Western crap.

Because WVU obviously isn't USC/UCLA. Nor did the B12 have UW/UO available to them.

I'm really interested in the Private Equity aspect of the FSU story. This could change College Football forever.

What level of involvement do the private equity stakeholders have in decision making?

Could Hedge Funds gut an Athletic Program if they don't meet their ROI?

Does Sovereign Immunity protect the assets of the Athletic Program from their Private Equity Investors?

If you're a Private Equity Investor, do you own the copyrights to the Seminole trademark?

(08-17-2023 06:49 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

Quote:But a source with knowledge of the discussions said the Big Ten did not have serious conversations about adding Florida State, and its top priority remains Notre Dame.

Some commenters have pointed this line out. I find it interesting.

Some will read this and suggest the Big Ten doesn't want Florida State. I wouldn't go that direction with it. We can simply take it at face value that the Big Ten is revolving their expansion plans around their white whale...Notre Dame. Everything they're doing at this point is a cog in that plan.

Secondly, we can assume Florida State has not pressed the issue. The statement is framed from the Big Ten perspective, but it says nothing about FSU's interest in being discussed. I maintain they would prefer to be in the SEC for several reasons. Long term, I think FSU and Clemson will be in the SEC as it just makes too much sense for everyone.

Also found this tidbit quite fascinating:

Quote:With Oregon and Washington headed to the Big Ten, and Arizona, Arizona State and Utah officially joining the Big 12, the Pac-12 had only four schools remaining. The ACC conversations about Cal and Stanford grew more serious. From an outside perspective, there seemed to be few benefits, especially for a league that needed two things desperately: more revenue and a boost to its football reputation. Neither school provided that. Add in travel to the West Coast for only two teams, and it made little sense.

Except to the presidents.

"Cal and Stanford were probably from the presidents' perspective a better target than anybody else in the Pac-12 just because of the academic reputation," one administrator said. "The fact that Oregon and Washington left, OK that's fine, but these are two pretty good brands, so how do we integrate them into the league?"

This is proof positive that some people in high places don't deserve to be there. Or at least they need to do a better job of delegating. Apparently one(at least) of these Presidents literally believed Cal and Stanford were the best targets despite the fact they were basically last on the board.

Just as a side note, if anyone out there is shocked that Stanford and Cal haven't found a home yet then you need to reevaluate your understanding. There is not one thing shocking about that. I could have conceivably seen the Big Ten take them in order to tie the room together, but there's no strong motivation to do that if they don't have to take them.

I repeat...the fact that Stanford and Cal have not been snapped up yet is not shocking. If this surprises you then go back to the drawing board because you don't know as much as you think you do.

More to the point, if this is how ACC leadership thinks then yes, I can fully understand why Florida State wants out yesterday. This is also the limited scope of thinking that got the PAC 12 into their quicksand-like death spiral.

Reminds me of when I knew the Big East was doomed. There was a quote from one of the administrators, either the commissioner or one of the presidents, referring to Navy, "they were class, class, class." They were enamored of Navy for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with reasons for admitting them. it would be like hiring Julia Roberts for an electrical engineering job because she was beautiful and classy.

If you could only use one metric for realignment value, that one metric would be football attendance. That is reflective of their TV value and financial backing. Cal and Stanford are well down in the P5.

(08-17-2023 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  Reminds me of when I knew the Big East was doomed. There was a quote from one of the administrators, either the commissioner or one of the presidents, referring to Navy, "they were class, class, class." They were enamored of Navy for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with reasons for admitting them. it would be like hiring Julia Roberts for an electrical engineering job because she was beautiful and classy.

Speaking as person who manages, hires, and fires ENGs, I would definitely make this move.