Unc
Nc State
Clemson
Fsu
All voted against adding cal and Stanford. Per espn report.
Nc State
Clemson
Fsu
All voted against adding cal and Stanford. Per espn report.
Those against expansion outed
- Thread starter Dan1911
- Start date
who cares anymore, if Pitt wins their conference they are in they will be in the playoffs.
They will continue to play mostly the same schools.
So yes these schools will eventually leave but Pitt will never be stuck playing schools from the west coast at 1030 at night and their fans will be able to drive to away games, not take red eyes.
They will continue to play mostly the same schools.
So yes these schools will eventually leave but Pitt will never be stuck playing schools from the west coast at 1030 at night and their fans will be able to drive to away games, not take red eyes.
Last edited:
Three of the four seem like locks to leave and I think NC State wants to believe that they're in that group.
People are tough on Phillips but it just seems like the conference is so divided and dysfunctional.
Isn't NC State basically ran by UNC admin? So I don't even know if it's possible for them to vote independently.
Cause he's rearranging the furniture in a house that burned down. He needed to have a little foresight years ago. Shoot, there were people on this message board predicting exactly what happened.
Yep. Needed to jump on the PAC idea (including Oregon, Washington and much of the rest) well back, right after the USC and UCLA poach happened. But no, the conference just sat with our thumbs in our posteriors, did nothing, and now on life support.
Frankly at this point, doing nothing IS the best move, since we blew all the obvious GOOD moves. But we’re actually compounding our past mistakes of inaction with belated, panicked, moronic ideas. As you say, the moves we didn’t make then, and the ones we SHOULDN’T make now were/are obvious to all … all except the ACC ‘braintrusts’.
So yeah, it’s likely akin to herding cats in the ACC at times, but overall the horrible leadership accusations.
They are already bitching that they don't get enough revenue. Why would they want to expand and split the pot 2 or 3 more ways. The inclusion of those schools won't expand the pie enough to make it worth while.
Yes, this seems to verify that these three proposed additions (Cal, Stan, SMU) would bring no revenue. In fact it’s really hard not to see after the administrative hassle to integrate, etc, how it wouldn’t actually reduce revenue. Oregon, Wash, the Arizonas with actual sizable fanbases would have brought revenue (as well as eyeballs, improved stature etc.), but the conf sat on its tail. That should have been jumped on a year ago. Too bad.
With all intelligent possible moves now gone, doing nothing (ironically) is now finally the conference’s best bet. None of these scrap leftovers like the above bring anything (except financial pain). Hold on with white knuckle force, require the malcontents to stay (or too pay up in full if they still insist to leave).
Of course that’s only as long as ESPN is willing to let the conf exist. But until then, bank the money as much as possible in prep for the lean times to come.
What a miserable situation the awful conference leadership wrought. Not overnight but through several years of doing nothing. This peril was crystal clear, back to when Ok and Tx left, but especially after USC and UCLA announced.
Last edited:
ESPN would add a pro rata share for the additional teams plus the significant added ACC network revenue from California and Texas at the higher instate rate. So, test the do add more revenue
I have turned this thing over and over in my mind and I really cannot see disadvantage in adding these 3.
For the foreseeable future THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL MONEY TO ADD TO THE POT.
But going forward, adding those 3 schools gives us a pathway to growth in the future.
And at that point in 2028 or 2030 or whenever, I dont give a damn about FSU and Clemson or UNC, because the conference remains sustainable at that point.
I’d love to hear the objective reasoning against - BECAUSE ITS NOT ABOUT THE “NOW” ITS ABOUT THE FUTURE.
For the foreseeable future THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL MONEY TO ADD TO THE POT.
But going forward, adding those 3 schools gives us a pathway to growth in the future.
And at that point in 2028 or 2030 or whenever, I dont give a damn about FSU and Clemson or UNC, because the conference remains sustainable at that point.
I’d love to hear the objective reasoning against - BECAUSE ITS NOT ABOUT THE “NOW” ITS ABOUT THE FUTURE.
How about hearing about what the reasoning was against it last year? With actual valuable schools?
The deadline for an ACC member to inform they are leaving is Aug 15. Probably telling Stanford wait till then.
To put pressure on the conference for unequal revenue sharing concessions for their "YES" vote.
Yes, UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State are both part of the University of North Carolina System, run by a board of regents.
However, NC St didn't vote with UNC when they invited Miami and VT in the early 2000s.
lol, you actually believe that it was up to the ACC if Washington and Oregon joined the conference 6 months ago? Washington and Oregon weren't going to accept a 13-year GOR with their eyes set on the B1G. The ACC was always a distant 3rd option for those two schools.
The only thing the ACC could have conceivably done to get those two into the conference would have been some sort of merger to keep the entire rest of PAC together.
In the early days, expansion was about fan bases with better bowl deals in mind. Then it evolved towards markets, with TV revenue in mind. Then it evolved into finding the right fits to create more content for networks. Now, it's about crowding out playoff tourney competition and geographic reach.
The ACC was always at a great disadvantage due to their being locked in place in all the above variables by SEC and B1G dominance. There was never a play for west coast schools.
I think the only play has always been to merge with either of the 2 bigs. The B1G is now gone so the effort must be made to create a product that the SEC/ESPN feels that will either enhance the SEC product or hurt the B1G if it is absorbed by the SEC.
I don't think the SEC wants any part of competing with the B1G below the Mason Dixon. They will probably pick 8-10 ACC schools, whatever it takes to void the GOR, and merge.
Pitt has a year or 2 to make themselves into market/brand the can add value when that happens. BC, Cause and Wake are dead and ND will be cut loose. We are fighting with Louisville and Duke for maybe 1 last spot.
The ACC was always at a great disadvantage due to their being locked in place in all the above variables by SEC and B1G dominance. There was never a play for west coast schools.
I think the only play has always been to merge with either of the 2 bigs. The B1G is now gone so the effort must be made to create a product that the SEC/ESPN feels that will either enhance the SEC product or hurt the B1G if it is absorbed by the SEC.
I don't think the SEC wants any part of competing with the B1G below the Mason Dixon. They will probably pick 8-10 ACC schools, whatever it takes to void the GOR, and merge.
Pitt has a year or 2 to make themselves into market/brand the can add value when that happens. BC, Cause and Wake are dead and ND will be cut loose. We are fighting with Louisville and Duke for maybe 1 last spot.
The other thing that people just can't seem to wrap their minds around is the fact, and it is a fact, that those schools will be making less television money next year than Pitt made the year before last. And that gap is going to increase for the next five years after that. Because those schools simply are NOT worth that much money. As is proven in every one of these moves.
But some people have so completely convinced themselves that there was some magic bullet out there that would have put the ACC in a great position if they would have just listened to them that they refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes.
Thats my question as well, and given that Pitt apparently voted yes, it makes me wonder what the Pitt Admin will look like going forward.
I am going to assume Heather's input was something very polite and collegial like "no effing way".....
I think now that expansion is about fear. Fear of being left out, fear of getting less money than Team B, fear, fear, fear. And it’s made some ugly conferences and destroyed a lot of tradition which, ironically, is a big draw for many people about college football.
I think you can also replace fear with greed and selfishness. Use whatever descriptor you want, but college football conference realignment is taking what little charm and attractiveness it had and throwing it away.
Each and every conference move pushes me closer to the door. I have a lot of better ways to spend my Saturdays than in front of a television set watching greedy, scared schools playing each other in some desperate attempt to maximize their profits, tradition be damned.
I'm the same. I used to watch a lot of CFB. Now I pretty much only watch Pitt. If Pitt is left out of a chance for the playoff, then I won't even watch at all. I pay a lot of money for television and streaming, and am cutting that back as I hardly watch it. I pay extra on top of that to watch Pens and Steelers. I may just cut it all except those two. We will keep SkyTv for now as we have that for our AirBNB property, and I can stream ESPN from them and get ACCN and all ABC and ESPN games. But to figure out how to stream NBC early in the morning for one game? I'll go fishing and watch the highlights.
But the truly bizarre thing that has happened is that CFB is a pro league where the schools are greedy and grabbing cash on television deals, but the players are paid basically by the fans. No other professional sport works that way. And it is done that way to skirt title IX (bad pun unintended but noted) and to avoid calling the players employees. And the entire enterprise is under a non-profit umbrella. It's nuts. And at some point the feds are going to want some tax revenue from it.
Of course you are rather an outlier in geographical case. But unfortunately the great majority of our fans would no longer care either. I suspect that’s delusional, Pro town thinking … spoiled, selfish, instant gratification, too swayed by the Steelers and Pens often being in the thick of their leagues over the years, etc. Most here say they’d be just as happy if not even more so if Pitt ends up playing football in some sandlot FCS-like minor league with other leftover schools and G5. That’s honestly great as far as their commitment.
But those are the hard core fans (who else would hang out on a Pitt football message board frequently?). They have to understand that the meatloaf and potato fans see it as a quasi major league pro sport. We are savvy, we know players at the top level are not playing for degrees or for love of the school or game. Especially now. We have a stranger playing QB every season (Pickett was the outlier, not the rule).
Those fans expect us to be in the major league.
But even Alabama and Ohio State are minor league. The concept of the student athlete and attachment to the school is what made college sports different and more watched than minor league baseball or hockey.
This unique sports experience is being strangled right in front of us.
If I am spending time and money to watch professional sports, I want to watch the top league. And CFB as a professional sports league isn't the top league.
So you can question fan loyalty, but there are many who are/were big fans who are turning away from it. The conferences are eating the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Alabama & OSU fans believe that their teams are the best on the planet and either team would win the AFC North every year.
News flash…….All of college football is minor league football.
Yeah, I'm mostly gone at this point. I was a season ticket holder from 2000-2019 and usually donated between $100-250 per year and attended every event. I just got too busy and decided to cut back in 20' then COVID happened and everything sports stopped and I loved it. Never really went back. Now I have plenty of time and money and only go to 1 game per year when I get a free ticket.
They could have looked to add 5 pac left overs before the B12. It would have been for the future. They dragged their feet and it was a bad decision the acc could have been the third major conference to survive even if 4 teams left. I don't think there are any additions now to be made that help even for the future. Best bet is to tell the malcontents stfu because you are getting out unless you pay the full amount including 100 percent of the GOR. Inforce it all the way through the courts and then look to poach the B12 when their next contract is up, which is prior to the accs
Maybe I don't think the sec will want to take 8 schools but maybe they take 6 and the b10 takes two. If 8 schools leave that dissolves the acc.
