I couldn’t get away with wanting Rice… At least Tulane is respectable in football at the moment.you're lumping Tulane in with Nwestern and Vandy academically???
which of the new schools are you happiest to add?
- Thread starter PITT 76
- Start date
Tulane isnt a big enough athletics brand or a big enough market (New Orleans is a smaller pro market) to even a sniff an ACC bid.
Not really too different than now, though. Women’s volleyball has had a west coast road trip for years now. Pitt swimming had a weekend back to back against Stanford and Cal this year. Baseball hosted Cal for a weekend series last season. Gymnastics is probably the one that will require a little more travel because Stanford and Cal are excellent at that sport, but last year Pitt went out to Utah and Denver for meets, though that was before the ACC started to sponsor gymnastics.
And cross country is a little different in that it doesn’t really have a “conference” schedule. There are weekend invitationals that aren’t really associated with a conference - last year Stanford went to invitationals at San Francisco, Virginia (ding!), Pacific, Wisconsin, and Santa Clara. Then flew up to Washington for the Pac-12 championship meet. And the NCAA regionals are geographic anyway and not conference specific, so they’ll compete at the western regional now just like they have been.
SMU and its not close. They will buy themselves a powerhouse program
The are the Oregon of the new conference alignment era and I for one am happy to have them.
The are the Oregon of the new conference alignment era and I for one am happy to have them.
I disagree (not strongly though lol). There’s already talk of Utah wanting to slide over from the Big 12. Those three schools could make adding 4-6 B12/former PAC-12 teams much easier than without them.
Emphasis on could of course.
The thing with SMU is that they had big money boosters buy their way into the ACC. Mission accomplished. Great move on their part. Will these boosters be so inclined to pump money into the program year after year if they don't see the results or run into donor fatigue? They will be getting limited incoming tv/bowl revenue compared to others and won't get much from ticket sales and concessions (about 22,000 fan average, which will go up in the ACC but still will be way low).
That's the question. No ACC revenue coming in. Will the boosters have enough money to even sustain a 6-6 program? We shall see. It couldn't come at a better time though because these schools dont need as much conference revenue as they think they do. If team A gets $80 million in conference revenue but only has a player payroll of $10 million and Team B only gets conference revenue of $40 million but has a player payroll of $20 million, Team B will be better.
Lest we forget,
This is the school with a booster who wont lose any sleep over a 200 million hit to the athletic dept.
I think it will be a helluva ride if the boosters are all in at SMU
SMU is getting a full revenue share from the ACC Network, and a full share of the ACC’s bowl/NCAA revenue. The only thing they’re foregoing is the Tier 1 revenue. They can probably reasonably expect to be getting about $25M or so in their first year in the ACC. Maybe a little less, but it’s still a big jump up for what they were getting before.
Ironically enough, SMU will probably get more from the ACC in 2024-25 than Houston, BYU, Cincinnati and UCF will get from the Big 12 in 2024-25.
There is no such thing as a share from ACC Network. Its one ESPN contract so that's incorrect. Now if you mean they get some bonus if they can get ACCN on the basic tier in DFW, then ok but I haven't heard that. Tier 1 revenue is like most of it. I think they are giving up way more than you are saying.
Maybe I should have said hanging on by a thread or hanging on by their finger nails.
Tulane was a charter member of the SEC. I bet they’d like to turn back the clock.
But they will have to fly non revenue teams more often now that they are in the same league won't they?
Part of it. They’ll get a share of the ACCN revenue, about $12M or so. They’re forfeiting the “Tier 1” share that’s about $24M.
We're playing 2 of the new schools in football this year, and espn has us listed lower on their power index than both schools, Cal and SMU.
I guess they have to write something, but I don't know how anyone can evaluate Pitt at this point. With a new QB and OC, this team is more of an unknown than normal.
I do know that I am very excited to see the new offensive system. Anything has to be better than 20 points per game. Right?
August 31 can't come too soon for me. I'm also glad we start off with Kent St. That should give us a game to work out any bugs in a new system.
I guess they have to write something, but I don't know how anyone can evaluate Pitt at this point. With a new QB and OC, this team is more of an unknown than normal.
I do know that I am very excited to see the new offensive system. Anything has to be better than 20 points per game. Right?
August 31 can't come too soon for me. I'm also glad we start off with Kent St. That should give us a game to work out any bugs in a new system.
Stanford understands just how big the mountain is, and are trying to make it a little less daunting.
Similar threads
