Report: ACC to add Stanford, Cal, SMU
https://www.thescore.com/ncaab/news/2703979
I know there's a thread taking about it, but this is confirmed.
Ah yes, good ole Atlantic Coast Conference with two teams from *checks notes* CALIFORNIA?!
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Not sure any of the realignment matters at this point unless you are getting into the Big 10 or SEC. ~20 team mega-conferences are the natural next step - VT just has to worry about itself, perform on the field, and start positioning itself for the SEC of Big 10 (or whatever they'll be called). Don't like it - but this is the reality and everyone will be fending for themselves.
What a clusterfuck of a disaster this shit house conference is. God damn this is fucking stupid. Traveling 8 fucking hours to play conference games to invite 3 teams that do fuck all to increase revenue payouts?
Jesus Christ what a bunch of small minded Mickey Mouse dumbfucks we have in the front office. All these assholes are doing is making sure their own alma mater isn't left out in the cold (I think I read a majority of current ACC Presidents have degrees from Cal Berkeley) and not giving one ounce about what is actually best for this conference right now. The best time to leave this shit hole was 5 years ago. The second best time is right fucking now. All this does is cement out status as the low rent sloppy seconds of college sports. FSU and Clemson probably not have cause to sue to leave. And we're going to be stuck here with our fingers up our asses patting ourselves on the back for rubbing shoulders with more academia snobs. Awesome.
After the initial period of lower or no payments then it will be an absolute net loss to all current schools. It's not like flying will get any cheaper in the future.
it really just confirms the short-sightedness of ACC league leaders
The dumbest motherfuckers in sports right now.
Even the Big 12 wasn't going to invite them, and we do this now, and don't even think to include Arizona or Arizona St, arguably 2 of the schools who at least attempt to give a shit about football? What the fuck
Um, as long as the Pac12 exists we aren't the dumbest, but a close 2nd.
Pac12 is now just the Pac2 after this
*2pac - California Love leaving Wazzou and OSU hanging
Damn. Nice.
This needs to go plaid. It's a plaid comment if I've ever seen one.
Right and then we will be the dumbest. We have a whole year of doing dumb shit and not reaching the levels of stupidity that the Pac12 reached.
My thoughts:
Edit: not supposed to be a reply to alum 🤦🏻♂️
Also this shows how incredibly lazy and reactionary ACC leadership truly is - the time to expand was before the PAC 12 crumbled and Oregon/Washington's spots in the B1G were in doubt. We take them, Stanford/Cal, and maybe a few more western teams, possibly also poach some Big 12 schools before they solidified themselves, and I could get way more onboard. But instead like usual, they wait around twiddling their thumbs preaching about academics and the student athlete experience etc and wait until everyone else has made their move. Absolutely pathetic leadership. Jim Phillips is just as bumbling and incompetent as his predecessor.
Phillips has his hand tied. If his presidents don't want to expand, then he can't either. If the ACC TV product sucks, then he can't renegotiate with TV providers.
League presidents also should get a huge chunk of the blame. But the conversation should have rapidly moved to expansion after the defections of UT/OU and USC/UCLA. I think Oregon, Washington, Calford, and maybe Baylor/TCU could have been compelling enough to renegotiate the deal.
It's quite possible that the presidents weren't interested then because they actually didn't want to be predatory (like the B10 alleged). It's also possible that this deal is only working because Calford/SMU are taking huge financial reductions - presumably, the other schools would not be interested in this.
I don't know anything more than what is public knowledge, but I think it's naive to believe that Phillips can just go out there and do whatever he thinks is best. He has to manage the conflicting interests of private schools, public schools, football schools, basketball schools, liberal arts schools, land grant institutions, presidents (aka academics), ADs (aka budget and fundraising people), TV networks, etc.
This is the problem with the ACC: Everyone has different priorities. The B12, SEC, and B10 don't have this problem, in part, because everyone is aligned on what they want.
ND part is definitely the most face palm for me.
Everybody has known for years that ACC is dead. The next decision maker with any sense of vision in this conference will be the first. So on it's face, adding these three is a kind of a shrug for me.
The optics of our overlord ND saying jump and these bozos saying "ok. how high?" is the bigger oof for me
1) No surprise that ND whined and then FSU bitched out. It's kinda... them🤷♂️
2) I, unfortunately, think nobody will stand up to ND because they are ND and swing the proverbial big d*ck money.
Mostly I just think, "Nah, he's got plenty of 'em." But he earned this one, IM(ns)HO.
Like, I'm seriously pissed off about this. First of all, this does absolutely fuck all to solve any of our financial problems. Oh, sure the new 3 will take reduced payouts for a few years, but it still leaves about 5 or 6 years on the back-end where we go back to where we are right now, because its not like ESPN is going to increase our conference payout out of the goodness of their hearts because we added Stanford, Cal, and SMU. Its mind-boggling how short sighted this is, and even then, we still managed to step in shit because we added 3 schools that bring absolutely jack shit to the football scene. And in Cal's case, they bring less than nothing because they're actively letting their football stadium crumble to ruin with little to no action taken to improve the situation. And in the case of SMU, the only notable thing they have in their entire history is the single biggest collegiate cheating scandal in history. They've gone fuck-all since, they all have football attendances that would be on par with Duke, and yeah... that's who we want to bring in.
But I'm actually MORE pissed off on behalf of every student-athlete for both Stanford and Cal, especially the non-rev sports, who now have to travel 8+ hours to play conference games every week. That's fucking insanity, and its going to negatively impact the academic careers of every athlete they have due to missed classes and slammed scheduled. Its bullshit, and it never had to happen.
Tell us how you really feel though... /s
Agreed on all accounts.
For a split second, I was thinking, "What? Is he really pissed that I don't leg his comments because I think he has more than plenty?" Then I kept reading. Preach it, brother!
Actually we are worse off in 5-6 years when those reduced payments have been eliminated and now we are having to pay more for travel!
Preach! This is going to suck so bad for the Olympic sports athletes, and Stanford actually gives a shit about their non-rev sports.
Meh kind of. We are only 4 years removed from them being ready to cut almost half their varsity level Olympic sports teams.
Honestly the travel is probably even worse than that since a lot of teams have more than one game/match per week... this super sucks for the student athletes
I think you made some good points but it was hard to tell between the blasphemy and the profanity. Sorry, I'm old.
It's been kinda fun guys, hope the SEC really does like us and wants us with them otherwise we probably are less than middle of the road program in the future.
thanks. I hate it
John Swofford is a member of ISIS and you can't tell me otherwise.
Also fuck ND. ACC if you somehow happen to read this, never schedule Cal and Stanford against ND. If you must then only 1 a season and don't start them till 2036. If ND wants to fix that then they can join the conference in football. If you want to add more football members then you yourself need to join or get no benefit from the additions. Fuck ND.
That actually would work in ND favor. They would just schedule with Stanford as a non-conference game which helps them fill out their overall schedule since they only play 5 ACC games a year as is.
I thought all of their football games are non-conference.
They have to play an average of 5 ACC games per year. But they also always plays Stanford. So now Stanford will count as one of those 5 ACC games and they can play the rest of the conference less
Notre Dame has actually struggled to fill in their non-conference games so they would likely prefer to keep Stanford as a non-conference game most years.
yes, it will count towards their 5, which either makes their life easier for scheduling in one sense, but i feel like this also complicates it now. We'll just have to wait and see what the pod format ends up with (if it even stays around) and how the rivals end up being when the restructuring is done.
Terrible decision, but realistically this is only a band-aid on a gaping wound. Stanford and Cal's reduced payouts only last 4 years, so once they are at a full share and the pretty marginal amount of additional revenue is gone, we are in the same boat. Except then it's harder to dissolve the conference.
This also tells me unfortunately that no one has a sure fire way out of the GoR right now. Leaving is going to be expensive, so it's probably best to just suck it up for the next 4-6 years and then try to buy your way out then. Who knows what the landscape will look like by 2030 though.
Honestly if they aren't able to break the GoR, adding these schools at a discount of Stanford/Cal getting $9M of $30M and SMU getting $0 over the next 7 years isn't ideal but is better overall for football. This 7 year period would take us to 2032, leaving only 4 years before the GoR expires.
The suck will be for the Olympic sports unless they can find more West Coast teams to add so they are able to create a full pod or division on the West Coast and alleviate travel for those teams.
I can't wait to see what the UNC Women's soccer coach gets quoted saying after his earlier " I hope Cal and Stanford die on the vine" statement to the media.
"It will benefit them, not us," Dorrance said. "We've built the best women's soccer conference in the country, and there's no way I want to share the glory of our conference with two schools that could do a very good job of recruiting against us."
Part of his chagrin is that Stanford beat UNC for the title in 2019 and has won 3 titles since 2011. UNC already has been passed by Florida State in the last ten years as the most consistent ACC team and this just makes things harder for the TarHoles.
Seeing SMU took $0 for 9 years.
They don't care. There is a reason we call it Southern Millionaires University around here.
Yes the only positive is that would leave only 2 more years on the GoR until it expires.
In my opinion this all boils down to: VT needs to "shut up and play football"
Unlike "Da U", we need to be "bak" come 2030 (earlier if possible), so Big18 or SEC finds value in poaching us. We need to start slaughtering the teams we are supposed to slaughter and consistently win against the average ACC teams.
Great. We need to start doing something we haven't been able to do in 20+ years. NBD
Yeah, Pry alluded to this in his interview with Sports Junkies when asked this week. He said we just need to win football games and continue to position ourselves. That's really all we can do and focus on right now. The more we can win, the better we look when the time comes to jump.
I'm guessing the conference name will not change just so everyone knows how stupid this really is.
No, they will hire a consultant and pay them outrageously to come up with something brilliant like "Athletic Coasts Conference."
After careful consideration and consultation with my wife and family, we have decided that, should it be offered, I would accept the position as that consultant.
College football has been ruined. I hate it here.
Interesting take, maybe VT is playing the long game?
And now why would Cal and Stanford vote us into the AAU if they damn well know it means that we're going to go to the Big Ten with UVa as soon as we get it.
I mean, an AAU invite doesn't necessarily guarantee a B10 invite, but our vote did keep them from being homeless or getting stuck in the Mountain West (at least for the time being).
EDIT: Also worth noting that Sands went to Cal for all of his degrees, so he does have a vested interest.
Fuck Sands. He is ruining VT, in my opinion.
Hyperbole at best. The academic and educational landscape is rapidly shifting. Like every other business/market/industry, academics are moving to a point where you are either (a) a lasting brand name, (b) a niche offering, or (c) a nobody. He's focused on keeping/getting VT in category A.
You may disagree with that strategy. You may disagree with how he's doing it. But he's not 'ruining' VT. Things change. This is change.
As you said below, VT (Sands) with this vote is playing school, not football. Yes, I don't agree with how he's doing either, or the direction, so in my opinion, he's ruining VT.
I understand that he didn't force conference realignment and the ACC being in this position, so I'll edit my comment to ensure that everyone knows its my opinion. But if playing school is the reason he voted that way, then that's ridiculous and poor leadership for the VT football and sports brand. It's a sports conference, it doesn't benefit the school academically.
I hate the move for many reasons but here's one. VT is a football school. It's part of our identity and had been that way basically my entire life. The football program is stuck in an athletic conference that clearly doesn't care about football. Sands' decision to vote yes signals that he intends to drastically change the culture and identity of VT. The culture and identity of an institution that I loved. And that's being eroded. Rapidly. I hate it. Fuck him.
Or, it signals him noting that with 3 more schools in ACC, it might be easier to slip out and accept an invitation to a different conference.
Doubtful. The more teams we add, the harder it will be to get out before 2036. And the fact we just added 3 teams so desperate for a league that they are forfeiting cash, they're definitely not going to have any interest in dissolving the league
rats jumping ship will take the first secure landing, no matter how bad it is. They'll also be the first to jump for better ship down river when it comes along.
Stanford, like ND, has a ridiculous endowment. They made nearly 2B in payout last year. Even if they signed the same Grant of Rights agreements it's not a barrier for them.
This is a huge point. Our endowment is just us under $2B. If we had a third of Stanford's we could leave now and amortized the $500MM payout over 5-10 years and be okay.
Yeah! Fuck him! Fuck him right in his dick!
Also, Sands' resume shows not one, not two, but three degrees from Cal. Of course he was going to vote for this
I realize this is both an athletics message board and a tense time in VT's athletic history but suggesting that the guy at the helm when VT announced and broke ground on the Innovation Campus is "ruining" VT is off base at best.
Well he ruined the logo
On this, we can agree.
Yes, obviously Sands is ruining Virginia Tech because it's mildly inconvenient for our athletics teams to travel to the west coast one time per year. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Got this once per year travel in writing somewhere? This is the league that set the ACCCG in Orlando for years because it was suppose to be FSU-Miami every year. That is the level of planning this conference does.
from the piece I linked below:
Thanks. I see it is in writing however there is that last sentence that still gives me doubt that the conference doesn't screw it up.
Call me off base or whatever you'd like but I'm not the only one that thinks it, alumni and students included.
Counterpoint:
This doesn't change ACC football significantly, doesn't hurt VT at all, adds some west coast/national exposure for VT, associates some prestigious institutions with the ACC, and maybe adds a little bit of money to overall ACC athletics.
I feel dumb asking this, and I'm not even sure how to word it as I haven't had enough coffee but here goes:
Can someone help me understand why the ACC obsesses so much over academics? Or why the B10 wants its schools to have AAU membership? Academics and athletics are pretty clearly separated and I doubt any VT-Stanford academic partnership was being held up because they weren't in the same athletic conference.
I don't really understand how the two have anything to do with each other?
The whole conference academics thing really makes no sense post internet, I mean even the internet2 thing was more than just conferences sharing information and such. When books had to be transported and such the regional conferences for academics mattered.
Not saying I agree with these explanations, but this is what I've heard:
If true, VT isn't playing a long game. VT is playing school, not football.
Sands is the president of an academic institution. If he was prioritizing sports over academics then he would be shitty at his job. I know we all love Hokie football, but VT is a school, not a sports team.
eh, conference alignment is 99% about sports, not academics. Leaders should make a decision that is best for the entity as a whole, but must consider how the primary effects and whether that truly benefits the entity as a whole. I just don't see that the benefits here for VT as whole outweighing how it is going to hurt the AD. Seems like net negative.
touché, and further emphasizes the point.
So basically the ACC just brought a knife (academics) to a gun (sports revenue) fight.
Do you really think that this move will drastically improve academics?
I think this is at best a marginal improvement for our research university, but quite detrimental to the 'student athlete'. I think it's fair to criticize Sands here (again, assuming the above tweet is true).
Yes, VT is one of the premier Engineering and architecture schools in the country.
In silicon valley circles, Stanford=HP and is a highest level premiere draw for recruiters to high tech.
VT is working hard to break into the to top ceiling in high tech and medicine.
Being associated with Stanford, in that circle, would be a substantial boost to attracting international students, staff and research of the highest calibre.
I'm not saying that people can't criticize him, criticize whoever you want. My point is that the outrage about a university president "playing school" is intellectually dishonest. We tend to view all decisions that impact the university through the lens of what's best for athletics, particularly football. That's totally understandable, but it is still a bias when it comes to critical interpretation of thing like conference realignment. From our perspective it's all about sports, from a university president's perspective it's likely much different.
Success in athletics (football) drives enrollment, but it doesn't enhance the academic opportunities or reputation of the university. Does the VT-Wake Forest school of bio mechanical engineering exist if we're not in the ACC? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the sort of thing Sands has to think about when given an opportunity to align VT with Stanford.
Sands at the end of the day is academics above all else. I'm disappointed but not surprised that an athletics conference decision is ruled by academic factors.
I am truly struggling to see how sending college athletes to California to play Stanford and Cal a couple times every year in every sport is going to help a bunch of east coast schools academically, but ok, I guess.
Agreed. I think a lot of mental gymnastics were done by league presidents here, and at the end of the day they just like the association and brushing shoulders. With no consideration of the impact on the players and staff who have to travel long distances.
@accpresidents
Question...how is it still the Atlantic Coast Conference with schools from the west coast as members?
This is a trick question. Technically there is only 1 ocean and all coasts are connected, we just choose to call geographic locations different names. So it works 🤷
Also, now that California gets hurricanes what is the difference really?
precisely!
UNC hearing they'll have to start playing football in California where they now get hurricanes:
Approximately 3 hours
How is it still the Big Ten, when it has 14 universities?
Maybe 4 of the universities are small?
Big 12 also has 14 and even with Texas/Oklahoma departing will have 18 next year.
The Atlantic Coast Conference is also going to have a Pacific Coast.
and the gulf coast
the ALL Coast Conference
For those upset with VT being a "yes" vote, I don't think Sands has a better choice.
If we don't have a landing spot in the SEC or Big10, and by all accounts we don't, then we need to do everything we can to keep the ACC together.
This is disputed... It's unclear if we would get an offer IF the Grant of Rights did not exist. Opinions (both informed and uninformed) have us all over the map.
The reality is, it's a moot point right now - if we could get out of the ACC and land somewhere, nothing changes. If we're stuck in the ACC til 2036, nothing changes.
IMO we (the ACC) sold another tiny piece of our identity for ~$4m/school. That's what is most frustrating to me. $4m is marginal.
To be fair, though: if the GoR didn't exist, then there's either (a) we get an invite, or (b) we don't. This move may be about removing the floor of option (b) for the next decade or so. It's like Tin Cup taking a drop, chipping to the green, and taking bogey out of play (not true for my golf game, but whatever). Instead, he keeps shooting for the green and missing and making a twelve, losing the US Open in the process. Except there really isn't any benefit in being known for scoring a 12 in the last hole of the US Open.
obligatory
I agree, but at what cost? Continuing to chip away at the soul of the sport?
VT isn't the cause of realignment. Yes, I hate what it's doing to college athletics, but we're in survival mode at this point.
To be fair the ACC would be in a stronger negotiating spot if we (and Miami) had been good this past decade rather than mid to bad
What are the odds things blow up again next summer anyway??
I think low. I don't see the GoR being broken.
A virtual certainty
Thus whole process is so overwhelmingly stupid that it's hard believe it is reality.
And the basis for all of it is: greed and panic.
Media companies panicking because their financial futures are beyond bleak.
So they markedly overpay for CFB contacts because Live Sports is one of the few things they can count on to drive numbers. Then to insure their investment they finance consolidation--OK, TX, Ucla, ect.
Then schools panic because they don't want to be on the outside looking in so they rush to join conferences even under less favorable financial agreements.
And the fans are left with a conference full of teams that don't fit and matchups nobody wants or cares about.
My experience as a fan is 0.0000% better knowing that VT will now be playing SMU regularly.
Thanks ESPN and Fox...
Can we at least change the three primary matchups now? No idea how that will work out, but it will be stupid too.
The VT-Cal primary matchup seems like a given now. SMU gets WF, Duke and BC for that religion-based rivalry. Stanford gets Cal, and? Yikes. #goACC
Stanford gets Louisville so they can play the annual Cardinal Classic.
People will be very confused that it is the Cardinal vs the Cardinals and will have no idea its color vs birds. Seems perfectly apt. #goACC
"Tech rushes to the right, what a stop by tech!"
18 teams = three 6-team pods:
Sickos Pod:
Basketball School Pod:
Football School Pod:
ACCCG is winner of the football school pod vs the best remaining team
OR just do promotion/relegation with two 9 team tiers.
The FSP would be a pretty good base for a conference. Take those 6, UNC, UVA, the best football of B12, then it's a P3 (or pretty dang close)
This is why I think Promotion/Relegation would be so good for the ACC:
This is the way
Promotion and a relegation with a payout difference between the tiers for each sport. Financially incentivise each athletic department to make those teams good enough to stay in the top tier.
Sorry, ND, to qualify for top tier and three higher payout you must pay 8 ACC games a year.
could be a 12 team top and the rest in a lower tier. play 6-8 top tier games and 1-3 lower tier teams depending on rivalries.
I think they will have to change the three primary rivals plan. 17 teams is just odd. Will they add one more?
I think they would keep the three primary rivals plan. I don't see why they would move away from it. Four primary rivals would work, but with the 3 added conference teams, it significantly expands the amount of time it would take to play everyone within the conference once.
I guess it wouldn't hurt to go the other way and have only two primary rivals.
I suppose you are right. They'll just do something uneven like the Big10 is doing. For example: Keep the 3-primary rivals for 14 schools and use just 2-primary rivals for the remaining 3 schools. I haven't checked if the math checks out with a 8 conference game slate or 9 conference game slate, but I'd guess they'll make it work.
The only way this move can be flipped to a positive one, is if it comes with expansion to include ASU, Utah, Oklahoma State and 1-3 of Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, WVU, UCF, BYU or Houston. Adding those schools can actually raise the profile of the conference.
Another positive is SMU forgoing revenue for 9 years. They're basically agreeing to subsidize the league for a decade. It may not be enough but this is a good thing. Another potential positive is the time slots and ACCN subscriptions. TV companies pay more for subscribers in state's with member schools and we just added California and Texas to the board. The ACC owns 50% of the network so more programming and having content for all time slots will also increase revenue.
All that said it is very important that none of the schools get full shares during the current contract. And I don't even think Stanford and Cal are worth a half share by the end of the agreement. SMU's share should obviously remain as low as possible when they do start getting paid.
And Mama was right. This is beyond stupid.
The ACC sure done some stupid today.
ACC is expanding - yeah, like your waistline as you age/in a way you don't want.
I could almost - emphasis on the word almost - understand doing this if there were enough western teams added to have their own division or large pod or whatever you want to call it. Limit the cross-country travel to maybe 1 game a year (2 coast-to-coast games one at home and one on the road so it is only 1 long travel). But once teams like Arizona, Arizona State and Utah were gone and you were down to what you have now? Come on people, what are you thinking?
I'm still holding out hope this is a ploy to add three yes votes to dissolving the conference...
So does this mean VT lost to ACC legend, Andrew Luck, in the Orange Bowl?
Does that make SMU the STD wart?
Damn it! I knew UVA was behind all this....
So, does this mean B10 has a thicker stick, but the ACC has bigger balls?
Haven't heard is this for all sports or just Football/Basketball as some reports indicated. If football/basketball that limits travel expenses immensely. But if we are having to fly the wrestling/tennis/volleyball/track/etc teams to California multiple times a year I am going to be pissed. The $ share reduction doesn't last forever, and eventually we are going to be worse off then we were to start due to increased travel costs.
We'll just need to buy our own plane...
O don't worry some stupid plan about using Dallas or other centrally located place to hold events is being discussed.
Since I live in Dallas I would be all for it, but of course overall would be a bad idea.
If the ACC invited Stanford and Cal just for their football and basketball teams, its an even bigger joke than initially thought.
Ross Dellenger dropping a tick tock (the journalism term, not the app) detailing the day by day happenings of realignment.
Looks like we went after the P12 leftovers and lost:
Honestly, Phillips played the game well. He got Stanford, Call, and SMU to give up A LOT - both in money and travel. He resurrected this from the dead. He whipped every prez individually. I still don't like it, but he earned this W.
😙🤌
2024 should give these guys enough time to actually find a theater to show the games in
This sucks, no way around it.
But if this means a direct pipeline opens up for VT STEM students to Silicon Valley, we get on the radar of Stanford / Cal PhDs looking to become professors, more research collabs/money, and the academic profile of VT raises through osmosis...I mean, that's a net win for the university.
But you also know it's bad when you go on the UVa boards and they can't justify the move with academics.
what, what... WHAT? What is that you say?
ND has the ACC by the balls? no... how can this be? whoever could have predicted this inevitability years ago when we signed the deal with them? I'm shocked. guys, this is my shocked face.... 🤨... do you see how shocked I am?
In reality, what does this actually do? For us? The ACC? the newly-added schools? The ACC was late to the party and this is all just a move in a feeble attempt to stay relevant and claim we're still at the big boy table with the
P5P4 conferences, and makes it so geographical alignment doesn't mean squat at all any more.Now back to the conference - I'll cut to my point. in 5-7 years, the ACC wont exist any more with the core group of teams. Everyone is going to bank the new influx of cash until they are financially secure enough to pay the buyout, meaning the delta for cash-on-hand and the ACC exit fee is less than the first 1-3 years of financial windfall from joining a new conference.
Am I more or less on track here?
It's actually not that much extra cash, but it was the best option for more cash.
I don't think this is some blockbuster move that saves the conference.
But I also don't get the gnashing of teeth. A little more money and exposure for VT. A little more variety in scheduling while awaiting 2036. How is today measurably worse than yesterday?
Let the boos rain down.
Because it made it more difficult to break apart the conference with more votes needed should we find a p2 landing spot; more difficult to renegotiate the TV contract if the ACC were to drop below 15 teams because now ESPN has bought themselves an insurance policy; and no real benefit to the reputation of the conference revenue generating programs football and basketball
if I thought breaking up/dissolving the conference was even a remote possibility; I would agree with you.
renegotiating the TV contract would be a God-send. It is the most viable way of breaking the GOR. The GOR only exists to fulfill the ESPN contract. ESPN dare not open that door
Also because now we are in the conference which allowed a school (SMU) to basically buy their way in. 🙄🙄
That alone should make anyone at least hesitate before claiming that the ACC is a power conference.
The Big XII has entered the chat.
The Big XII has left the chat.
Lol, says the leader of the league who literally waited until all the other conference had made their moves and then picks up all the scraps. Is the ACC really that arrogant/oblivious or just plain stupid?
No, he is accurately saying what is going on, the ACC did not get busy so we are getting the left behinds.
Did I miss the memo?
Are we no longer concerned with phrasing?
Also - knowing ESPN was fully behind pushing this move, can't wait for them to totally trash it and laugh at the ACC on Gameday in the morning. Still do not understand why ESPN trashes its own asset.
Maybe we should have stayed in the Southern Conference in 1965! Would we better off now?
We would be getting ready to play VMI tomorrow...at VMI.
Ouch
That's a bad take, this move does nothing to protect VT from being regulated to a lower league because there are three possibilities
1) The GOR is unbreakable and we have a decade more to see where things go.
2) The GOR is breakable and no one wants ACC teams, FSU and Clemson haven't moved on yet.
3) enough teams to dissolve the GoR in which those teams have spots. VT would be in that list because there aren't enough valuable teams to get to the 8+ number.
Not surprised to see a SoS writer try to once again tell us that we are a small backwoods school who should just be happy to exist
Yeah i still listen to the podcast sometimes because I'm a junky but those guys are very much state media. If ACC hadn't added the new schools he'd be tweeting hot takes defending that instead.
As prior military, I read "SoS" as "$hit on a $hingle".
Just another writer who deserves to be corrected. Again and again.
The bigger ouch is that it really doesn't
I entirely dislike the destruction of the Pac12 and I blame it entirely on the Big Ten. I'm not a fan of adding Texas and West Coast schools to the Atlantic Coast Conference either.
Having said that, if in some alternate universe Stanford and Cal were on the East Coast I'd be stoked to be adding them. I like the schools I just don't like the distance.
To your name, OP, thank God for Leroy Grumman figuring out how to make tanks fly.
Southern Millionaire U is right. Think we could raise the same for a move out of the ACC
SMU raised $100 million in 7 days
Talk about Pony Excess
I hear some ponies make $300k per pop.....
Stud Fees Be Nuts....literally
Man it feels bad to be that inferior to a horse, mine doesn't come close to holding that kind of value.
Yeah but can they run on a treadmill?
This is pandering. And I like it.
Probably difficult to get a wild horse on a treadmill, so probably not.