Picking Up The Pieces

[Chile_Ute]

On 3/26/2024 at 5:53 PM, HLB said:

And for good reason, because they're going to need to be able to flexible enough to bend over and take it up their backside.

I’m sure you have the how-to manual on that….

[azgreg]

 

[glduck]

On 3/26/2024 at 4:43 PM, HLB said:

For starters, who said that Oregon State wasn't extended and offer?  Maybe Oregon State refused an offer to join the ACC.

To that end, the author of this filing fails to recognize that over history, Cal and Stanford have had more national appeal to the general viewing audience than Oregon State.

But who cares?  The ACC didn't need Cal, Stanford, Oregon State or Washington State.  None of those four were going to impact the ACC's viewership, attendance numbers, and etc.  The ACC didn't need any of those schools.  The ACC simply chose to extend a charitable offer to Cal and Stanford.

This isn’t true. The ACC has known for months that they’re going to lose all their top schools, and needed to bring in reinforcements to pad the conference for when they lose Fla St, Clemson, North Carolina, etc. They absolutely did need to expand, and that’s why they did.

[EastCoastFan]

On 3/26/2024 at 7:43 PM, HLB said:

  The ACC didn't need any of those schools.  The ACC simply chose to extend a charitable offer to Cal and Stanford.

Are you as stupid as you sound?  The ACC was 'charitable' in adding the Bay Area schools?  If you take a moment and stop drooling, you may see the light -- that the ACC itself saw the writing on the wall with FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc. about to jump, and they wanted to shore up the remaining leftovers with at least a few schools so they'd still look sort of like a conference.  In other words, to avoid a total collapse-city.  Which will probably happen anyway.

[utenation]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:50 PM, EastCoastFan said:

Are you as stupid as you sound?  The ACC was 'charitable' in adding the Bay Area schools?  If you take a moment and stop drooling, you may see the light -- that the ACC itself saw the writing on the wall with FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc. about to jump, and they wanted to shore up the remaining leftovers with at least a few schools so they'd still look sort of like a conference.  In other words, to avoid a total collapse-city.  Which will probably happen anyway.

One thing that will be interesting about the ACC is their TV contract.  Both Stanford and Cal took a penny on the dollar $7 million per year TV paycheck for the remainder of the current contract. 
 

To my knowledge, most of these contracts have a renegotiation option if schools leave.  Ours had a window when the LA schools left. 
 

If the big dogs of the ACC find a way out of the conference, I wonder if they open up the books a bit more for Cal and Stanford?  Logic says when the prime assets leave, the value of a renegotiated deal is less but maybe more than $7 mill per year?
 

SMU foolishly took no TV money until a new deal is on the table. 

[azgreg]

On 3/26/2024 at 7:50 PM, EastCoastFan said:

Are you as stupid as you sound?

No, he's dumber than he sounds. He has all the mental agility of a small soap dish.

 

[EastCoastFan]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:45 PM, utenation said:

One thing that will be interesting about the ACC is their TV contract.  Both Stanford and Cal took a penny on the dollar $7 million per year TV paycheck for the remainder of the current contract. 
 

To my knowledge, most of these contracts have a renegotiation option if schools leave.  Ours had a window when the LA schools left. 
 

If the big dogs of the ACC find a way out of the conference, I wonder if they open up the books a bit more for Cal and Stanford?  Logic says when the prime assets leave, the value of a renegotiated deal is less but maybe more than $7 mill per year?
 

SMU foolishly took no TV money until a new deal is on the table. 

Cal is after money.  Cold hard cash.  They'd sell themselves to the Sun Belt if there was a juicy media payout.  They think they're Vanderbilt or Northwestern, when in actuality they're just UMass with some additional Nobel prize-winners on the staff.  Their accountant keeps talking bankruptcy.  They still believe they could get picked up by the B1G, and for now, they don't mind a temporary stay in a league where some of the schools still have a plantation mentality.

Stanford, in contrast, just wants to live in a respectable neighborhood., even if there's cross-country travel.  You know, with clipped hedges, Volvos in the driveway, a country day school down the road.  They shudder at the Big-12, the way they did when somebody said "Add Boise!  Add UNLV!"  They already have 'old money' and don't need to russle up a lot more like some hedge-fund wannabe neighbor.  They somehow saw that comfort-zone in the ACC.  Maybe it was from watching Gone with the Wind with a few of the GeoTech guys.

[KUGRDON]

Thread

[Orange]

On 4/4/2024 at 7:12 PM, KUGRDON said:

Thread

I'mma guess the one "like" there is from you.

[row Z]

This article summarizes the proposed 80 team "super league" from "Turnkey ZRG" that would re-organize college football with 8 new primarily geographic conferences (including the old Pac10), and new rules for revenue sharing and transfers etc. The B1G teams would be separated into 3 separate regional conferences.

Turnkey includes some significant individuals in media and college sports: Devils/Sixers owner David Blitzer, NFL executive Brian Rolapp, Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam, Syracuse chancellor Kent Syverud and TurnkeyZRG chairman and CEO Len Perna. I have no idea how viable it is in the real world, but it does seem workable at first glance. 

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/

 

[azgreg]

I'll take "Not Happening" for $300 Alex.

 

[azgreg]

 

[row Z]

 

[glduck]

UCLA subsidizing Cal is interesting to me, a dumb guy without the benefit of a law degree to review (or understand) how the UC system is set up, because UCLA didn’t break the terms of the Pac-12 media deal, nor did they force an early termination of any deal. They announced they were leaving, then waited two full years until the current conference deal expired before leaving. Does UCLA (and to a lesser extent Cal?) currently subsidize the dozen (or whatever) smaller UC schools? If so, is the $10 mil proportional to the current percentage of earnings that those smaller UC schools receive?

[Trojan209]

So if Stanford & Cal were invited to the B1G down the road does Cal have to pay the money back?

[MrBug708]

The dumbest thing about this whole situation is if you read Cal’s announcement when they joined the ACC, they gladly donated money back to the conference to help promote the other schools. It’s apolitical ploy over hurt feelings that Cal is a have not.

[dtd]

On 5/12/2024 at 9:17 AM, MrBug708 said:

The dumbest thing about this whole situation is if you read Cal’s announcement when they joined the ACC, they gladly donated money back to the conference to help promote the other schools. It’s apolitical ploy over hurt feelings that Cal is a have not.

It's pretty shameful. 

[Bison]

Why an NCAA antitrust settlement will leave lots of questions unanswered - ESPN

As we are getting settled into new conferences in a couple to a few months, I wonder if this might trigger another wave of realignment.

[azgreg]

 

[Bison]

On 7/14/2024 at 4:40 PM, azgreg said:

 

Oklahoma & Texas were supposed to leave for the SEC after this season in addition to the B12 media rights deal expiring (they already signed a new one for six years) but they left a year early.  If ESPN opts out of the ACC media rights deal instead of having it go all the way to 2036, the ACC has two years left on their deal with ESPN.  It's already past June 30th for the 2025 season so I think 2026 is more likely for Clemson & FSU and maybe more ACC teams given that 2026 will be the final season on that ESPN media rights deal.

Missouri did announce they were joining the SEC in November 2011 and joined in July the following year so anything is possible.