Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I love it and hate it. Did it piss FSU off? I certainly hope so.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they only go with two “protected opponents” and Cal, SMU, and Stanford are each other’s permanent games.Throw them in a pod with Louisville, lol.
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.
Yep.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'll admit I was wrong about the ACC adding Pac schools.No way. Was told time and time again by the know-it-alls on this board that it simply wasn't happening.
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.Seems smu needs a regional partner .
Houston ?
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.
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!"
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.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'll admit I was wrong about the ACC adding Pac schools.
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.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?
I'm looking forward to FSU's temper tantrum, and then watching them do nothing.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!"
I was against the move as well at first, but I’ve come around to supporting the Pony Express for a few reasons:I would have waited until 2030 to pick off B12 teams before adding SMU. I absolutely hate the SMU add. And no on Tulane.
your desperate, good for the Big 12 to give full shares to PAC teams , but bad for ACC to give peanuts to PAC.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 $$ being made, but so little that it doesn't solve any of the core issues. And, in return for the money, you're going to have to travel 2500 miles a time or two per year to play a shitty team.
It is desperate. Make no mistake, this was done for one reason only.....to keep the conference above 15 members when FSU, UNC, and Clemson bolt someday. If the conference dipped below 15 members, ESPN had the contractual right to redo the ACC TV deal.
So, this move really solves very little. Those 3 schools are still going tho bolt as soon as possible. Yes, there are a few million extra $$ 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.
Where are they going? They're leaving in 2034, 2035, or 2036? Ok, go ahead.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 $$ being made, but so little that it doesn't solve any of the core issues. And, in return for the money, you're going to have to travel 2500 miles a time or two per year to play a shitty team.
The SMU boosters are filthy rich so they’re covering the $$$SMU 9 years w/o $$$ .... wow
"Cal, Stanford and SMU will come at a significant discount, which will help create a revenue pool to be shared among ACC members. SMU is expected to come in for nine years with no broadcast media revenue, sources told ESPN, and both Cal and Stanford were expected to receive 30% shares of ACC payouts. That money being withheld is expected to create an annual pot of revenue between $50 million and $60 million. Some of the revenue will be divided up proportionally among the 14 full-time members and Notre Dame, while another portion will be put in a pool designated for success initiatives that rewards programs that win."
The lack of any sense of self awareness is beautiful, isn't it?Where are they going? They're leaving in 2034, 2035, or 2036? Ok, go ahead.
Travel is only an issue for the outlying schools, you know kinda like WVU. And guess what, it's easier to get to SF or Dallas than Lubbock or Ames.
If those three schools leave and we’re making the same money as we are currently, is it really a problem? Is traveling out to California once every other year much different than scheduling a home/home with a Pac-12 school?It is desperate. Make no mistake, this was done for one reason only.....to keep the conference above 15 members when FSU, UNC, and Clemson bolt someday. If the conference dipped below 15 members, ESPN had the contractual right to redo the ACC TV deal.
So, this move really solves very little. Those 3 schools are still going tho bolt as soon as possible. Yes, there are a few million extra $$ 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.
What happens to Washington State and Oregon State? Mountain West you would think. I feel for them.
Well, the Big12 moves were worse because they never thought to make G5's buy their way in.And the Big 12 moves weren't made out of desperation?! Jesus, they redefined the word!
You can pick those off in 2030 if you want.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.