Per Athletic, Cal, Stanford, and SMU voted in
- Thread starter Pitt2006
- Start date
No way. Was told time and time again by the know-it-alls on this board that it simply wasn't happening.
I love it and hate it. Did it piss FSU off? I certainly hope so.
I hear you. But as a fan of college football, I think it's awesome every time I get to see a new team come into Heinz. I love the variety; it makes the sport great. So this, in conjunction with the new scheduling concepts, will be cool... at least for a handful of years, haha.
But the everything-seems-to-screw-Pitt-in-a-chaos-theory-sort-of-way fan in me thinks that somehow our new protected Rivals will be Clemson, FSU, and Alabama (somehow).
I wouldn’t be surprised if they only go with two “protected opponents” and Cal, SMU, and Stanford are each other’s permanent games.
I do imagine that this will likely mean that the ACC moves to a nine-game conference schedule, though.
I think its great. It should be unanimous since they caved in to the four who were blocking it originally and are distributing the new additional money unequally to the supposed "top performers" now. Watch it will be based on merit and these teams will not perform as well and then be pissed about that too.
SMU 9 years w/o $$$ .... wow
"Cal, Stanford and SMU will come at a significant discount, which will help create a revenue pool to be shared among ACC members. SMU is expected to come in for nine years with no broadcast media revenue, sources told ESPN, and both Cal and Stanford were expected to receive 30% shares of ACC payouts. That money being withheld is expected to create an annual pot of revenue between $50 million and $60 million. Some of the revenue will be divided up proportionally among the 14 full-time members and Notre Dame, while another portion will be put in a pool designated for success initiatives that rewards programs that win."
"Cal, Stanford and SMU will come at a significant discount, which will help create a revenue pool to be shared among ACC members. SMU is expected to come in for nine years with no broadcast media revenue, sources told ESPN, and both Cal and Stanford were expected to receive 30% shares of ACC payouts. That money being withheld is expected to create an annual pot of revenue between $50 million and $60 million. Some of the revenue will be divided up proportionally among the 14 full-time members and Notre Dame, while another portion will be put in a pool designated for success initiatives that rewards programs that win."
Welcome. I'm all for it. It's a net gain for existing schools.
Syracuse and BC make the most sense for us. And I'm not just saying that because they blow... but I'm kind of saying it because they blow.
Nerd Bowl: Duke vs Stanford
Transcontinental Script Bowl: Pitt vs Cal
Donor Bowl: Miami (pending SEC investigation) vs SMU
Culture Clash Bowl: Miami vs Stanford
If No One Saw It, Did It Happen Bowl: Wake Forest vs any of the new three
Yep.
2 rivals, that leaves 14 schools you play Home and Home every 4 years.
FSU, UNC, and Clemson "WE NEED MORE MONEY!"
ACC: Here is a way we can get more money
FSU, UNC and Clemons: "NO NOT LIKE THAT!"
ACC: Here is a way we can get more money
FSU, UNC and Clemons: "NO NOT LIKE THAT!"
NC St finally realized they weren't really in the club.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Have the Big12 bloggers declared this as the end of the ACC yet? That it's a terrible deal? That the ACC is just desperate?
We likely have two options- wait to invite Big 12 schools around 2030 or invite Tulane, who I think is similar to SMU with a little less money on-demand. They used to be in the SEC as well.
I would have waited until 2030 to pick off B12 teams before adding SMU. I absolutely hate the SMU add. And no on Tulane.
Well, they could view it as it not worth being worth the extra $3 or $4 million they get.
I really hope when 2030 rolls around that the better public and private schools in the ACC and Big 12 go off and form their own conference. No more Wake Forest, BC, Baylor, TCU, Louisville and so on.
Haha, I didn't even see you say it. I had someone else in mind.
It is desperate. Make no mistake, this was done for one reason only.....to keep the conference above 15 members when FSU, UNC, and Clemson bolt someday. If the conference dipped below 15 members, ESPN had the contractual right to redo the ACC TV deal.
So, this move really solves very little. Those 3 schools are still going tho bolt as soon as possible. Yes, there are a few million extra $$ being made, but so little that it doesn't solve any of the core issues. And, in return for the money, you're going to have to travel 2500 miles a time or two per year to play a shitty team.
For a school like Pitt all this does is take away a non conference game a season and they will play either one of these schools out west 3 out of every 4 years. Pitt will probably pull in another 5 million a season.
I'm looking forward to FSU's temper tantrum, and then watching them do nothing.
I was against the move as well at first, but I’ve come around to supporting the Pony Express for a few reasons:
• ACC Network gets into Texas
• Forgoes media revenue for 7-9 years to give to existing members
• They have more potential than most other schools of becoming elite again due to their boosters
your desperate, good for the Big 12 to give full shares to PAC teams , but bad for ACC to give peanuts to PAC.
We've had quite a few recruits visit from California over the Narduzzi era. It always turns out to be kind of silly, because they seldom actually commit here (transfers are a different story, obviously). I wonder if this opens the doors a bit, now that UCF has kind of carved into our Florida recruiting. Hopefully they can find a way to make each team go out west at least once per season (or close to it).
What happens to Washington State and Oregon State? Mountain West you would think. I feel for them.
And the Big 12 moves weren't made out of desperation?! Jesus, they redefined the word!
Where are they going? They're leaving in 2034, 2035, or 2036? Ok, go ahead.
Travel is only an issue for the outlying schools, you know kinda like WVU. And guess what, it's easier to get to SF or Dallas than Lubbock or Ames.
The SMU boosters are filthy rich so they’re covering the $$$
pittdan77
Athletic Director
The lack of any sense of self awareness is beautiful, isn't it?
If those three schools leave and we’re making the same money as we are currently, is it really a problem? Is traveling out to California once every other year much different than scheduling a home/home with a Pac-12 school?
I would have liked to have been a little more proactive (Utah, the Arizona schools, etc. ), so the ACC could actually have a presence out west, rather than just a few anomalies. But obviously you can't invite those two teams.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Well, the Big12 moves were worse because they never thought to make G5's buy their way in.
