WHATS NEXT FOR ACC?

[Bullmastiff 1]

If you asked me a few years ago which power conference was in the most trouble I would have said the BIG12. Now even with the new ruling, the ACC still feels like a powder keg. More of a not if but when scenario for a couple of their top brands to leave.

Which raises a few questions.

1- Would they stay more regional to replace any departures? Putting schools like UCONN/Memphis/Tulane in play?

Or

2- Would they look out West again? The addition of SMU was one thing but CAL/Stanford? The travel is brutal. Both are great academic institutions, both have a ton of money, but neither are exactly killing it in athletics right now (At least the two that really matter). Even with all that endowment is it really sustainable for Cal/Stanford?

Would ACC look West to help them out and also lock in more games out West expanding their brand further?

Who would even be in play? OSU/WSU I know they could have added them previously but maybe they didn't want to go all in before lawsuits were done. SDSU? FRESNO? UNLV even?

I know Cal/Stanford would turn their noses up at the idea but desperate times desperate measures and all that.

 

[Meister_Rebel]

B12 brings in SMU, Cal, Stanford, UNLV. The ACC also loses Florida State, Clemson, and NC. The ACC merges with AAC and pray they keep P4 status.

That is all.

 

[RebelinWA]

Good thing Cal and Stanford wouldn't have as much of a say in it as they did when they were in the pac. It would make sense to create a coast to coast type of conference if their biggest brands leave. They would take UNLV, FSU, CSU, or SDSU to go along with USF, Memphis or Tulane.

This plan would:
1. Give Cal and Stanford more sustainable travel partners.
2. Adds another bridge between coasts.
3. Keeps them in the Florida market.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

B12 brings in SMU, Cal, Stanford, UNLV. The ACC also loses Florida State, Clemson, and NC. The ACC merges with AAC and pray they keep P4 status.

That is all.

Interesting angle hadn't thought of that.

The Cal Stanford additions were really odd to me from the start. Why do that unless you plan to expand further West.

 

[Rebel1986]

Interesting angle hadn't thought of that.

The Cal Stanford additions were really odd to me from the start. Why do that unless you plan to expand further West.

Because those two schools agreed to come in without any portion of the media deal for a set number of years.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Because those two schools agreed to come in without any portion of the media deal for a set number of years.

Of course but long term it can't be sustainable can it?

 

[Rebel1986]

Of course but long term it can't be sustainable can it?

They get a full share after 10 years. See the attached article for the breakdown https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38304694/sources-acc-votes-invite-stanford-cal-smu

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

They get a full share after 10 years. See the attached article for the breakdown https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38304694/sources-acc-votes-invite-stanford-cal-smu

10 years is a long time to absorb that money in travel. Even for a Cal or Stanford.

 

[Rebel1986]

10 years is a long time to absorb that money in travel. Even for a Cal or Stanford.

Did you read the article. They do not wait 10 years to get money, they are fully vested at 10 years. They get 30% for the first 7 years than at year 8 it jumps to 70%. That is a far better deal than Washington State and Oregon State will get. They get roughly $45 million, so 30% of that will be roughly $13.4 million per year to start. SMU gets nothing for the first 9 years!

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

Did you read the article. They do not wait 10 years to get money, they are fully vested at 10 years. They get 30% for the first 7 years than at year 8 it jumps to 70%. That is a far better deal than Washington State and Oregon State will get. They get roughly $45 million, so 30% of that will be roughly $13.4 million per year to start. SMU gets nothing for the first 9 years!

Its insane...