“Colorado and Arizona are garbage brands that fit right into the XII.”
—SMF prior to them landing in XII
“Colorado and Arizona will end up in B1G.”
—Also SMF 🤣
ACC Project 2030
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
—SMF prior to them landing in XII
“Colorado and Arizona will end up in B1G.”
—Also SMF 🤣
So adding two schools that don’t care about football and SMU tips the scales to ACC being the 3rd best conference?
This signals to me the desperation and “do anything at all costs” to survive. And BTW, if there was ever any doubt of the Big 3 leaving, that has now left the station. ACC was too late. They could’ve had the 8 schools the XII added. XII was in desperation mode. ACC didn’t act. Just like the PAC didn’t act.
However, good for the ACC. It added a couple more elite academic brands that they can point to and feel good about.
***Unless you can get ND to join. I will add that disclaimer to every post. If they join ACC, that changes everything.
Nope. Always said Colorado was a great brand. Arizona not as much but one of those 2 Az schools are worth it. Not both. Adding 2 Arizonas and 2 Utahs are dumb. Plus you are new here so how do you know what I said.
One thing I am sure of is Colorado wont be in the B12 in 2030. Denver is going to the B10 or SEC. Az, you may be able to hang onto.
Respectfully, I think there are two prevalent misconceptions in your post:
1. I don’t think the ACC had any real shot at the post-UCLA/USC defectors because they were adamant on keeping the Pac-12 afloat. Once that possibility was eliminated, it was either the Big Ten or the Big 12, which made more regional sense.
2. The reason behind expanding wasn’t to add schools that people care about, although Cal and Stanford had higher TV ratings in 2022 than any Big 12 addition besides Utah. It was to find new ways to increase the per-school revenue distribution despite being locked into a contract through 2036. Cal, SMU, and Stanford solved this problem by receiving pro-rata shares from ESPN and returning parts or all of them to the existing conference members. I’d imagine Oregon and Washington were not willing to do this unless it was the Big Ten so they would not have helped with this.
Additionally, our future is now secured regardless of whether Clemson, FSU, and/or UNC depart. If they do leave, the ACC is back to 15 members, the conference retains CFP access, and the payouts are no different through 2036.
Come on man! People couldn't even predict what was going to happen with Cal, Stan and SMU and yet you are projecting out 7 years from now. Go get a beer and relax!
We will see but I have to think B12 tv ratings are going to be pretty bad. None of those schools have traditionally drawn big tv numbers will they increase in the next 6 years we will see. Also what networks are bidding for the rights makes a big difference. If ESPN and Fox both want more games they could get more than they are worth by looking at ratings. If only one network is bidding they might struggle to get what they are actually valued at.
Like every sports property is up around that time. They are going to get hammered. They may get AAC money.
You tend to say numerous things that are message board genius worthy.
You have zero clue what will happen in 2030. You are simply hoping it will happen. Here’s all I will say. Leadership matters. The liberal, blue state conferences (PAC and ACC….again, culturally not politically) are concerned with academics. For good reason. Football and basketball merit simply hasn’t been there. You must point to something to make yourself feel better despite the clear and obvious danger that lay ahead for a conference that is very much splintered.
There will be remainders from the ACC that will be culturally “not aligned”. Think Louisville, NCSU and those like Cal, BC, Wake, Pitt and Syracuse.
Also, I could point to probably 7 posts that you wrote last year that demonstrably terminated the XII.
You were wrong. As usual. It’s probably time for you to publish another “list” predicting what the ACC will look like in 10 years…just like you did when you thought there was a Power 4.
**This is the point of the program where I clarify that I’m not leaning to either side of political aisle. I’m simply highlighting the clear differences in the leadership (ie university presidents, commish) between schools in the SEC, XII and B1G versus that in the ACC and PAC.
It has everything to do with pragmatism, business and athletics versus ego, academia, and inferiority in leadership and business acumen. XII, B1G and SEC are clearly forward-minded. The other two wanted to form an alliance to remain steadfast in their silly 1960 era ideals of the student-athlete. And that’s not saying you have to like it. It’s saying you better keep up or you’ll find yourself in the way of that dumb PAC leadership.
The PAC IS Stanford and Cal, in terms of what two schools would be epitome of that athletic failure….from the two sports that matter perspective.
Last edited:
The blue state/red state thing is tiresome. While its true that college football is more popular in red states, politics and culture arent going to send Louisville and NC State into the Big 12 so they can play WVU, Cincy, Iowa State, and Arizona. That's absurd. Your conference sucks D. The brands are God awful. The ratings are going to suck. You lost 5 of the original 12 members. The ACC lost 1. We may lose more but we haven't yet.
Politics and culture just aint enough. Pitt, BC, GT, UVa, Cal, Stanford, etc are powerful academic brands that everyone wants to be associated with. And KSt, OKst, and TT aren't strong enough football brands for ACC teams to start jumping to your JUCO league.
No, it doesn't.
Because the ACC was already 3rd best when you exclude Oklahoma and Texas from the Big 12.
Exactly. As long as the ACC has brands such as Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC, we are the clear third-best conference.
All 6 of those schools are irrelevant and have been in the modern era. Pitt is probably the “best” program.
That says a lot. It’s a conference on borrowed time. Two separate conferences.
FSU, Clemson and UNC appropriately don’t give the rest of those mediocre programs the time of day. UNC should be lucky it has brand. None of them are in the same stratosphere of UT or OU. And yet the “have not 5” keep pointing to those teams for validation.
College football realignment future: Predicting two 20-team mega-conferences - Sports Illustrated
Continued greed will further consolidate teams into large, sprawling conferences.
www.si.com
What’s the count of teams in XII and ACC once UNC, Clemson and FSU leave…which has been assured with today’s news?
College football realignment future: Predicting two 20-team mega-conferences - Sports Illustrated
Continued greed will further consolidate teams into large, sprawling conferences.
What’s the count of teams in XII and ACC once UNC, Clemson and FSU leave…which has been assured with today’s news?
Why did you link that article? It is a message board post. Evicting teams? Iowa State almost making the B10 or SEC? Lol.
To be fair, the Big 12 is better at football and basketball right now but their brands suck so bad. So, the value of the conference is definitely behind ACC.
And the Big 12 is going to see its quality depleted for 2 big reasons:
1. Texas is now firmly an SEC state with the additions of UT and OU. KSt, Iowa St, OK St, etc are going to lose out to Arky, Mizz, Ole Miss, etc.
2. SMU is now P4. They will take recruits from B12 schools.
TCU, Baylor, TT, Houston, and OK St in the region isn't nearly enough to keep enough quality recruits home
It’s the sentiment of blue state vs red state football by the college football media.
BTW, since you didn’t answer the question it’s 8 XII and 2 ACC. And it would be 9-1 after those 3 leave and XII plucks Tech and State.
Keep the concern about academics, partna. Be my guest.
Why do you keep talking about a stupid message board post? That article could wind up on MB geniuses. I told you that I agree that red states traditionally favor college football over blue states. I dont need an SI message board post. That "article" was so stupid, I didnt even get through it. The SEC evicting Missouri? Boise State getting invited the party. Lol.
You can post whatever you want. It comes down to this; In 2030, you better hope that Colorado or an Arizona doesnt leave for the SEC or B10 and that your conference is able to get at least $40 million/year per school because that's what the ACC will be at by then with annual escalators and ACCN in Bay Area (and maybe Dallas but I doubt its getting carriage there). Because if you get Pac 12'd in your TV deal, the ACC is going to take 4-8 B12 schools, maybe including WVU.
It’s one third of the most popular college football podcast in the country, to be fair.
Forde is connected. He understands what matters moving forward (brand, NIL collective, fan support, ability to draw eyeballs, etc).
Here’s what doesn’t matter, moving forward. Academic prestige. Period.
It doesn’t matter 1%. B1G and SEC didn’t even consider Stanford. Stanford! Perhaps the most elite, well-rounded institution in the country. But I’m sure they’ll consider Pitt, BC and Syracuse (institutions that couldn’t hold Stanford’s jock) because of its academic profile 🤣.
This is all moving towards a “minor league system” or something that is less connected to the university and sorta its own separate entity. It’ll still be connected to the university but I’m guessing there could be other academic programs, etc created for kids who wouldn’t otherwise qualify. And universities will be quick to separate this “data” from the university data. I am thinking specifically about ND. Their alumni and fans will demand it. The more academia-minded, non-business oriented, “I am proud of my ND education and I’d pay 2 million for it” types will scoff and vehemently resist.
Those types will lose the argument.
One more thing…what carriers/conferences are doing WILL increase tv viewing significantly. Not just a little bit. On this forum last year, I mentioned the possibility of TOSU someday considering SEC. I no longer see that happening mostly because I don’t think it needs to happen. However, the final product of 40 or so teams that could be here in 2030 is going to capture the casual fan way more.
The passionate fans will also continue to watch. This includes those disgruntled fans who proclaim they won’t watch.
College football, as currently constructed, doesn’t have enough must-see inventory. The non-con season (September) is God-awful every year with the exception of maybe 5-6 games total…and there are some years we don’t even have that many.
Last edited:
I don't know how much more expansion makes sense. Most teams added in these last moves Texas,ok, usc are worth more than the 60 to 70 million the b10 and sec are currently making. UCLA wa s brought along because usc didn't want to go alone to the big 10 and they were worth enough to justify another team. Oregon and Washington are as good as anyone left who isn't nd and UNC and they only get a partial share. Is fl st or Clemson worth 70 million to the sec? Is VT? To me the only adds to the sec that are for sure worth that ND and UNC. Now the big10 is different they are all new markets south of MD. Fl st and Clemson are for sure worth that to the big 10 and I would include ND and UNC as well. Probably one of VT/ VA would be for them also. But how big is the b10 willing to go and do they look westward for any adds since they have already added four teams. Colorado would fit in nicely in the big 10.
VT? Ha. Uh no.
I could see a scenario where WVU/VT are added to SEC with the final move of a “league” is made. No way is Tech at level of those other programs.
Hell, I think VU Wahoos are more appealing than Tech.
To the b10 probably yes. That adds a new market in a populous state with enough fans to demand increased subscriptions. Do they get northern VA enough to increase rates maybe not but they added Rutgers and md.
They wouldn’t in the current conference construct.
I think the thought is that a Super League will be implemented at some point in the future (see Pat Forde recent article….you can disagree on teams. That’s fine. I think he’s correct in that it will absolutely be trimmed down. It’s why I’ve always thought the schools in realignment game that are at biggest disadvantage are the Miss St, Vandy, Purdue types).
In that scenario, both leagues will want to be big enough to still have enough haves and have nots (Kentucky, WVU, VT types) for a number of reasons. As is clearly stated in his story, football brand, engagement and eyeballs will be what matters.
Many will totally dismiss the lighting pace of college football changes and will say something out of touch like “oh that won’t happen for another 15-20 years”. These are non-detail oriented people who are lazy and not truly staying up to date on the shifting landscape.
It most certainly will not be 15-20 years. It will be 5-10 at the most. It’s going to happen in conjunction with change in governance, player compensation, etc.
All this going on, currently, doesn’t solve the Ohio St (and like programs) problem. And that problem is that TOSU has 2-3 games against like talent. That must change. And the carriers will ensure it does. There will be frequent crossover games with like-talent teams. They want the casual football fan into college football and you do this by increasing the inventory of “can’t miss” games with the biggest programs.
And it WILL succeed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
