(08-23-2023 03:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I do think the distinction between taking zero media revenue versus zero conference distributions is a key one.

If SMU is still getting a conference distribution from the ACC for the CFP (which will likely skyrocket with the next CFP TV deal), the Orange Bowl, and NCAA Tournament credits, then that alone is worth it to take a haircut (or buzz cut) to the media distribution compared to the AAC or forming a new Pac-12.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but as I understand it, the Orange Bowl will be part of the expanded CFP and therefore won't have a separate deal with the ACC going forward.

The media carping continues from the consequences created by the media.

(08-23-2023 03:43 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 03:38 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 03:35 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Dear lord, you even have a program as legendary as Stanford begging for scraps. CFB is getting wild!

I consider myself one lucky guy knowing that my Bearcats may have gotten aboard what may be the final lifeboat on the sinking Titanic that is CFB tradition. Our boat may have a few small leaks in it but at least we're not clinging to a door in the ocean like some of the others.

Be careful. There are no safe harbors.

Don't have to tell me twice. I am under no grand delusion that the Big 12 is safe. The ACC versus Big 12 knife fight for the bronze medal will be entertaining to watch over the next decade.

I don’t see how the ACC possibly adding 3 teams the Big 12 “passed on”, somehow makes them a threat to being the #3 conference. Especially when Clemson and Florida St are reportedly trying to leave for the next 13 years.

(08-23-2023 03:01 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Looks like Pony94’s new golfing buddies will be presidents on the other coast.

Shhh, don't summon Pony94 yet. Not until there's an invite (if ever).

(08-23-2023 03:46 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 03:43 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 03:15 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  Taking SMU feels like a big blow to WSU/OSU. Basically all of the 'rebuild the PAC' scenarios include SMU, so if they do want to try to go that route they have one fewer option on the table.

Taking Stanford and Cal would be an even bigger blow. I can't see a scenario where the Pac-12 is rebuilt without them. The only scenario I see where a Pac conference exists (in name, at least) in that scenario is where Washington State and Oregon State merge with the MWC, and the new conference takes the Pac-14 name (which has greater value than the Mountain West name.)

Oh for sure, but I think everyone kinda assumed they would be gone - I couldn't really envision a scenario where Stanford would want to be in a rebuilt/frankenstein PAC. But something like WSU/OSU, the top few MWC programs, and SMU would have been sorta viable.

But what would be the point if you're already in the AAC? The Pac-12 already lost 2/3 of its previous membership, and the two most valuable remaining members are bailing. So you'd take on a new conference with more onerous travel for maybe $3 million/year more in media revenue without an OTA deal, and pay a steep exit fee on top of that? Sorry, but I can't see that happening in the best case scenario.

If I’m SMU, any deal I make with the ACC would be contingent upon FSU and Clemson staying. Those 2 leave, then I want my revenue.

It can't be just 3, can it? That seems silly. Who would be #4? It has to be down to Memphis, South Florida, and Tulane. I'd bet Tulane.

To summarize some IMO obvious stuff:

If this happens, then the Doomsday Scenario for Wazzoo and OSU is now reality.

It also harms the AAC, losing perhaps its top remaining brand. The AAC will have to fight harder than ever for G-supremacy, especially if Wazzoo and OSU join the MW (or the MW merges in to the PAC shell).

Hurts my USF too - I'd been harboring dreams of the nPAC4 staying together, and adding USF.

Oh well.

(08-23-2023 04:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To summarize some IMO obvious stuff:

If this happens, then the Doomsday Scenario for Wazzoo and OSU is now reality.

It also harms the AAC, losing perhaps its top remaining brand. The AAC will have to fight harder than ever for G-supremacy, especially if Wazzoo and OSU join the MW (or the MW merges in to the PAC shell).

Hurts my USF too - I'd been harboring dreams of the nPAC4 staying together, and adding USF.

Oh well.

Who do they backfill with? Could the MWC jump to 16 with AAC West schools (doubt it)? Does the AAC take UConn football only?

B1G: We're taking USC, UCLA Oregon and Washington and you'll like it.

XII: Four corners... COME ON DOWN !!!

ACC: Uhhh... Well... everyone else is expanding so I guess we'll expand too. Ummm... we'll take those guys.

(08-23-2023 04:35 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 04:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To summarize some IMO obvious stuff:

If this happens, then the Doomsday Scenario for Wazzoo and OSU is now reality.

It also harms the AAC, losing perhaps its top remaining brand. The AAC will have to fight harder than ever for G-supremacy, especially if Wazzoo and OSU join the MW (or the MW merges in to the PAC shell).

Hurts my USF too - I'd been harboring dreams of the nPAC4 staying together, and adding USF.

Oh well.

Who do they backfill with? Could the MWC jump to 16 with AAC West schools (doubt it)? Does the AAC take UConn football only?

Army

(08-23-2023 04:27 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  It can't be just 3, can it? That seems silly. Who would be #4? It has to be down to Memphis, South Florida, and Tulane. I'd bet Tulane.

They’re adding no one else. Did you see what SMU had to do to get in? No other school can do that.

SMU will be missing out on roughly $56M in TV revenue if they leave the AAC to join the ACC at $0 in TV revenue. However I'm sure that they can easily make up the $56M they would have made by donations for being in Power conference.

SMU might be the final team to ever leave the G5 because at this point if a P2 raids your league heavily then you'll lose autonomy status. P4+G5 now.

(08-23-2023 04:40 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 04:27 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  It can't be just 3, can it? That seems silly. Who would be #4? It has to be down to Memphis, South Florida, and Tulane. I'd bet Tulane.

They’re adding no one else. Did you see what SMU had to do to get in? No other school can do that.

Tulane might be able to but I have no idea if they would.

(08-23-2023 04:40 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 04:27 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  It can't be just 3, can it? That seems silly. Who would be #4? It has to be down to Memphis, South Florida, and Tulane. I'd bet Tulane.

They’re adding no one else. Did you see what SMU had to do to get in? No other school can do that.

ND is their 18th non-FB member + 6 ND games a year (Stanford + 5 more). At this point they will be effectively an ACC member for football too with 6 games to another's 8 games.

(08-23-2023 04:35 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 04:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To summarize some IMO obvious stuff:

If this happens, then the Doomsday Scenario for Wazzoo and OSU is now reality.

It also harms the AAC, losing perhaps its top remaining brand. The AAC will have to fight harder than ever for G-supremacy, especially if Wazzoo and OSU join the MW (or the MW merges in to the PAC shell).

Hurts my USF too - I'd been harboring dreams of the nPAC4 staying together, and adding USF.

Oh well.

Who do they backfill with? Could the MWC jump to 16 with AAC West schools (doubt it)? Does the AAC take UConn football only?

(08-23-2023 03:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s interesting that SMU is leveraging a seeming desire by the ACC to add Stanford/Cal to get into the expansion conversation by effectively subsidizing Stanford/Cal. It’s a bizarro world version of what we were discussing elsewhere about a league needing to take NC State in order to get UNC or other big brother/little brother situation. Essentially, it’s the big brother telling a league that they need to subsidize the little brother for expansion to happen politically.

Here, it’s the reverse with SMU saying, “We know that you make Stanford and Cal work, so WE will subsidize it all if you also add us.”

Just amazing.

That’s definitely a new one.

Trust me Stanford and Cal are offering significant reductions for a number of years.

(08-23-2023 03:55 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 03:46 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 03:43 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(08-23-2023 03:15 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  Taking SMU feels like a big blow to WSU/OSU. Basically all of the 'rebuild the PAC' scenarios include SMU, so if they do want to try to go that route they have one fewer option on the table.

Taking Stanford and Cal would be an even bigger blow. I can't see a scenario where the Pac-12 is rebuilt without them. The only scenario I see where a Pac conference exists (in name, at least) in that scenario is where Washington State and Oregon State merge with the MWC, and the new conference takes the Pac-14 name (which has greater value than the Mountain West name.)

Oh for sure, but I think everyone kinda assumed they would be gone - I couldn't really envision a scenario where Stanford would want to be in a rebuilt/frankenstein PAC. But something like WSU/OSU, the top few MWC programs, and SMU would have been sorta viable.

But what would be the point if you're already in the AAC? The Pac-12 already lost 2/3 of its previous membership, and the two most valuable remaining members are bailing. So you'd take on a new conference with more onerous travel for maybe $3 million/year more in media revenue without an OTA deal, and pay a steep exit fee on top of that? Sorry, but I can't see that happening in the best case scenario.

I agree that it’s unlikely… but never underestimate what schools will do to get another leg up on the perceived pecking order. Maybe Memphis is motivated that a “best of the rest” Pac-12 is the only way they’re ever getting into a league better than the AAC. It’s what driving SMU to give up what we all see as the main benefit of P4 membership (TV money) so that they don’t have that G5 label anymore. Once again, it might not be worth it at the end, but it can’t be totally discounted.

(08-23-2023 03:20 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  Is it a bribe or Pimping out your athletic department?

That particular industry is not part of my professional expertise, but I have the vague impression that "and you get it for free for seven years" is not a core part of the "pimping" part of that industry.

(08-23-2023 04:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If I’m SMU, any deal I make with the ACC would be contingent upon FSU and Clemson staying. Those 2 leave, then I want my revenue.

SMU has no leverage. The only reason why the ACC is even considering them is because of this deal.

When a school as rich as SMU is now in a conference with UNT, they’ll be perfectly happy with the ACC even if it ends up consisting of just the old Big East schools.