Stanford to the ACC? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-14-2023
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/pac-12-died-because-its-presidents-refused-to-help-usc-or-acknowledge-trojans-real-value/
It is interesting to hear somebody with a clear USC connection stating that the fact the PAC-12 wouldn't give USC a larger share of the revenue was a long-standing problem. I for one absolutely would assert they didn't "deserve" it. While they are getting more money in the Big-10, they aren't getting more than Northwestern. I guess the Big-10 doesn't understand their superior value either.
Quote:During Larry Scott’s tenure — when the seeds of the Pac-12’s destruction were planted — the conference refused to give the Trojans an extra revenue share that would have kept them happy as a conference member. This was a known issue. The conference refused to do anything about it.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - jacket3ree - 08-14-2023
I think the options to pick and choose conference affiliation by sport are limited. Limited to football maybe depending on who you are. Or Johns Hopkins Lacrosse. The ACC doesn't want just Stanford's Olympic sports, creating travel nightmares and adding costs without adding revenue. That will never happen. Likewise I can't believe the B1G would just take Stanford football without the rest.
In the age of the portal, if Stanford's relegated to a "lower" conference, its place in the pecking order probably is a probably a little worse than it was in the Pac12, and at that lower level when compared nationally. We'd find out the marginal benefit of being in a power conference and the marginal constraint imposed by the drop in revenue, even for sports not housed in the Pac12.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - dabigv13 - 08-14-2023
Maybe B1G takes our Olympics sports only. Maybe giving away the milk for free if we are still trying to get into a power conference for football, but should be a consideration if Stanford decides to de-empasize football.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - jacket3ree - 08-14-2023
Playing taps.
Perusing the various ACC boards, particularly the Clemson board, Stanford and Cal to the ACC appears to be DOA. NC State was the swing vote that killed it. Strong no votes were Clemson, FSU, and UNC. Va Tech was on the fence, but likely would have supported the expansion if it came down to them.
I think the strong yes contingent is signaling that they know but for the Grace of GOR, they are next and keep us in mind if we are in y'all's boat in a few years. God only knows what ND is doing. "We strongly suggest you two join a conference we won't." WTF?
I believe the play now is to maintain the Pac-4 and its A5 status during the grace period, collect money, fight off lawsuits with righteous indignation (great court strategy until it isn't), stick with Cal, OSU and WSU, and take the next two years to figure out how to keep a counterbalance power conference to the Big 2 and only a matter of time 2.
Scheduling will be a nightmare, because OOC schedules get locked in years in advance.
Then as we wait for exit fees to drop with advance notice, get to work on my Creepy Nirvana Smiley Face Conference, aka the Southern Crescent Pacific Conference (SCPC with a nod to historic railroads and Leland Senior). This is the we don't forget who stabbed us in the back and GT is the tongue league.
Washington State
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
San Diego State
UNLV
UTSA (San Antonio is the 7th largest city in the country)
SMU
Rice
UAB (check the NSF rankings)
Georgia Tech
Duke
Wake Forest
Virginia
Pitt
Boston College
Syracuse
Notre Dame
I stopped at 18 because anything larger seems insane. Not perfect on geographical balance just yet, but strong 6-team pod possibilities (sponsored by Kuerig TM) the T-shirt possibilities are endless and the uni-patch is awesome.
![[Image: s-l1600.jpg]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/rTEAAOSw07JefCQB/s-l1600.jpg)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - pcgoode - 08-14-2023
I don’t see any realistic good options left. If we don’t get into the BIG or ACC (doubtful at this point from what I’ve seen), recruiting is going to suffer considerably in all sports because the competition and exposure will be qualitatively lower in a new version of the PAC with a bunch of G5 schools. This is a big blow to the identity of the university.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Vandelay - 08-18-2023
Stanford is rolling out the big guns. Condi Rice to lobby ACC schools for Stanford invite.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-expansion-condoleezza-rice-george-w-bush-lobbying-on-behalf-stanford-smu-per-reports/
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Card10Fan - 08-18-2023
I thought the rumor was to expect clarity today for the ACC? I've seen nothing reported. I though the ACC president's were expected to meet again.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-18-2023
Yeah, that was reported by many sources and now a cone of silence on speculation. Maybe the ACC didn't change any votes and Stanford is given more time to come up with even a better offer. Who knows?
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - PDX Card - 08-18-2023
From what I've read, a better offer would mean Stanford paying the ACC to take them.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - CardinalSagehen - 08-18-2023
Take this with a grain of salt, and say what you will about social media clickbaiters that never name sources, but this guy has been right surprisingly often during the last 18 months of realignment...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1692730584093622393?s=20[/tweet]
As my buddy recently noted, if you follow our men's basketball coach on Twitter, when you look up MHver3's bio you'll see, "Followed by Jerod Haase." I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Vandelay - 08-19-2023
Trojanswire postulates that Stanford could buy ACC votes by writing game checks. Interesting theory. I wonder how big those checks would need to be?
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/if-stanford-really-wants-to-join-the-acc-theres-a-clear-plan-for-how-to-do-it/
Quote:You can put two and two together here: N.C. State has an open football date on its 2024 schedule. Stanford could write the Wolfpack a very large check to fill that slot. Hey, maybe N.C. State would no longer oppose Notre Dame’s proposal to bring Stanford and Cal to the ACC.
Stanford could also fill Duke’s remaining nonconference game slot in 2024 and pay the Blue Devils a hefty sum. Stanford could write a lot of game checks to make sure the ACC gets 12 votes.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-19-2023
In hindsight Stanford probably could have used an equivalent amount of money it might use on ACC entry to have kept the PAC-10 together by simply handing that money over to the PAC schools. It could have supplemented their revenue until Apple TV would have proved viable or turned out insufficient.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Vandelay - 08-19-2023
Now it is being reported that Cal, Stanford, and SMU may all be willing to forego media rights payouts in order to join the ACC. This is the first I've read that Cal is willing to do that. Pretty crazy considering the poor financial condition of their athletic department.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/news-are-stanford-cal-smu-buying-way-acc-cfb-insider-cryptic-response-next-wave-conference-realignment
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-19-2023
(08-19-2023, 11:13 AM)paloalto Wrote: In hindsight Stanford probably could have used an equivalent amount of money it might use on ACC entry to have kept the PAC-10 together by simply handing that money over to the PAC schools. It could have supplemented their revenue until Apple TV would have proved viable or turned out insufficient.I don't think that would have worked. FOMO was in full flower for all the schools involved. If they waited and the Apple revenue didn't reach the heights required, there was a high probability of no offer from the B1G/Big-12 being on the table. It was now or probably never, and those that could, did. It would have required far more than Stanford could spend to indemnify the other 9 schools for a revenue shortfall of arbitrarily long duration.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - OutsiderFan - 08-19-2023
SMU, Stanford, and Cal are all willing to buy votes, that's what their position on not taking any payouts means.
The ACC contract with ESPN mandates ESPN pay out a new share for each team added to the ACC. Last year that figure was about $40M per school. So if three schools are added, that would mean ESPN has to pay the ACC $120M more per year. If you were to divide equally between the 14 ACC members, that would be about $9M per school more than they would get otherwise.
But, the no votes are the ones that must be moved and in particular Clemson and Florida State want more money than say Wake Forest. That seems reasonable, so the question is does Wake and Pitt and Syracuse take less of that $9M to give more of it to Clemson, FSU, and North Carolina? Perhaps the ACC is working out a way to distribute more money based on performance, I don't know, but there is no doubt SMU, Stanford, and Cal would be buying votes with their willingness to go without media rights payments as condition of getting invited to ACC.
This conference expansion is the only way the ACC can get more money for its schools. But I would imagine the new members can't go for 13 more years getting absolutely nothing for their media rights, so that $9M bonus can't last forever. Eventually even SMU will have to get paid, and there is no mechanism to get the ACC more money for 13 more years unless there is some provision in the contract that ESPN must pay more if its ratings increase.
Maybe ESPN will force a merger between the ACC and SEC in the long run, but the ACC schools seem to be in a very rough spot for foreseeable future. Kind of perplexing why anyone would want in now. But who knows, maybe they have a plan to rescue themselves.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-19-2023
I don't think it's that perplexing why teams want in to the ACC. Yeah, it has problems but it's better than the cataclysm of not being in a major conference. Those here who have supported salvaging the Pac-4 with merger with minor conference teams are out to lunch. That can only be a last resort. It's almost certain death.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Giants - 08-19-2023
(08-19-2023, 12:51 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: SMU, Stanford, and Cal are all willing to buy votes, that's what their position on not taking any payouts means.
The ACC contract with ESPN mandates ESPN pay out a new share for each team added to the ACC. Last year that figure was about $40M per school. So if three schools are added, that would mean ESPN has to pay the ACC $120M more per year. If you were to divide equally between the 14 ACC members, that would be about $9M per school more than they would get otherwise.
But, the no votes are the ones that must be moved and in particular Clemson and Florida State want more money than say Wake Forest. That seems reasonable, so the question is does Wake and Pitt and Syracuse take less of that $9M to give more of it to Clemson, FSU, and North Carolina? Perhaps the ACC is working out a way to distribute more money based on performance, I don't know, but there is no doubt SMU, Stanford, and Cal would be buying votes with their willingness to go without media rights payments as condition of getting invited to ACC.
This conference expansion is the only way the ACC can get more money for its schools. But I would imagine the new members can't go for 13 more years getting absolutely nothing for their media rights, so that $9M bonus can't last forever. Eventually even SMU will have to get paid, and there is no mechanism to get the ACC more money for 13 more years unless there is some provision in the contract that ESPN must pay more if its ratings increase.
Maybe ESPN will force a merger between the ACC and SEC in the long run, but the ACC schools seem to be in a very rough spot for foreseeable future. Kind of perplexing why anyone would want in now. But who knows, maybe they have a plan to rescue themselves.
One correction $120/15 (don’t forget ND - they receive a share) = $8 million/existing member.
I don’t foresee a merger with the SEC but I never dreamed that Stanford would consider the ACC as a conference home. If we haven’t learned anything else recently, I think we learned that anything is possible.
When all the TV media contracts begin coming up for renewal again in the early-mid 30’s, I think we shall see another round of upheaval. If so, maybe that will be the time for a move towards two super conferences.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-19-2023
A conference schedule of OSU, WSU, SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Army would have an immediate negative impact on recruiting for almost all, if not all, of Stanford's Olympic sports. In the end it might turn out to be the only option.
FWIW all those schools are great institutions. They're just not the right combination for keeping Stanford at national prominence in college sports. I understand anything Stanford does right now should be viewed as possibly a temporary fix. However the damage to recruiting with this conference schedule would have a longer lasting effect on recruiting.
Those in charge at Stanford think the ACC is their best choice right now. The head football coach thinks the ACC is Stanford's best choice right now. I would bet most Stanford Olympic sports athletes would choose the ACC with the travel implications over conference teams like Army and Tulane.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Card10Fan - 08-19-2023
(08-19-2023, 04:26 PM)paloalto Wrote: A conference schedule of OSU, WSU, SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Army would have an immediate negative impact on recruiting for almost all, if not all, of Stanford's Olympic sports. In the end it might turn out to be the only option.
FWIW all those schools are great institutions. They're just not the right combination for keeping Stanford at national prominence in college sports. I understand anything Stanford does right now should be viewed as possibly a temporary fix. However the damage to recruiting with this conference schedule would have a longer lasting effect on recruiting.
Those in charge at Stanford think the ACC is their best choice right now. The head football coach thinks the ACC is Stanford's best choice right now. I would bet most Stanford Olympic sports athletes would choose the ACC with the travel implications over conference teams like Army and Tulane.
100% agree with this take.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-19-2023
(08-19-2023, 02:59 PM)branner Wrote: The ACC is a ridiculous option for Stanford even if ACC members would part with an equal media share. It's a self-debasing option if Stanford has to enter the conference for "free" -- nothing is free -- or with a buy-in.
How has the university lost its dignity, and its way, and its self-respect, so suddenly?
This would be a far better option: keep the Pac-4 together. Add SMU, Rice, Tulane and either Army or UConn. Those eight would be a credible foundation for something that (i) could be expanded and (ii) has a feasible travel schedule. You would add Texas, Louisiana, and New Jersey (via Army or UConn) recruiting visibility. New TV markets would be Dallas, Houston, and New York. Texas and the south more generally are booming, with no signs whatsoever of a change in trend.
This new conference could wait for the ACC to implode, which seems likely, then add selectively from its ranks, but with eastern and western divisions to keep the travel burden down.
No no no no no no no no no no no. This is so wrongheaded. Keeping the most minor teams of the Pac-12 together and adding minor teams is a minor conference. You may not like that this is a fact but it is a fact that conferences establish hierarchies in college sports. Revenue and recruiting, which both become self-reinforcing, flow from that. What you and many on this site have either advocated or expressed willingness to tolerate is death for athletics at Stanford. A Pacific coast conference is dead. We may not like that but it's where the world is in 2023. If we ignore that reality, we are consigning ourselves to minor status.
An athletics-aspiring university with dignity and self-respect must be in the Big 10, ACC, SEC, or Big 12. Period. That's it. You cannot play major college football outside of those conferences (unless you're Notre Dame, which we are not and which plays a half ACC schedule anyway) starting in five months. Nobody will care about you if you don't play major college football. If we try to sustain sports without football it will be embarrassing to the university and only possible with perennial subsidies to the athletics department unlike anything Stanford has ever done. Even if we try that the dynamics that link conference quality to recruiting will be profound headwinds for our other sports.
I get that it sucks that we are where we are but we will undermine Stanford as an athletics department and university if we lie to ourselves any further that West Coast sports are sustainable without partnership with the parts of the country that give a damn or that we can band together with all the misfits (this latter option is so depressing to me....why the hell is allying with SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Army/UConn more desirable than playing in a major conference?).