Are We Headed Towards 4 Conferences?

Donate To GopherHole
GopherTheJugular said:
It was meant to show that two conferences can come together, create a tournament, exclude everyone else, and no laws will be broken, etc. i.e Congress isn't really gonna have anything to go on.

Sure, it has very little effect on the eventual national champion, but that wasn't my aim. Whether it's a small pre-season conference tourney or the end of season "national champ" tourney, if a handful of conferences agree to participate while leaving everyone else out, what's the problem (from a legal viewpoint)?

To your last point, I think that strengthens my argument. The G5 teams could schedule their own tournament and claim a champion, just as D3 does now. There's nothing in federal law that says because a school has an FBS football team that is has a right to compete for a specific national championship.This is
Click to expand...
This hits the mark. There's no constitutional or legislative imperative that says all institutions of higher learning have a right to play in the same tournament. G5 schools have options - there isn't just one - at other levels of FB: FCS, DII, DIII, NAIA. G5 could start its own tournament.

Let's reverse the field. If MVFC or NSIC wanted to elevate to FBS, should it get an autobid?
 

PMWinSTP said:
I think four of the top 10 NIL earners are women on non-revenue sports teams. Yes, that's rare air, but if they are big on social media, their teams will garner a lot of attention and fill venues when traveling.
Click to expand...
Has that proven to be the case? I honestly don't know. I know Olivia Dunne(sp?) gets tons of social media attention and NIL, but do arenas fill up when LSU gymnastics are in town?
 

looks like it happened. multiple sources reporting that the ACC has voted to add Cal, Stanford and SMU for the 2024 season.

voting NO were FSU, Clemson and North Carolina. that means N Carolina State flipped its vote from No to Yes.

why did this happen? - one theory - ESPN's deal with the ACC calls for the media rights deal to be renegotiated if the conference drops below 15 members. with the 3 additions, the ACC goes to 18 members. So, IF the three No vote schools leave, the ACC still has 15 teams.

and now the focus goes back to the remaining Pac-2 orphans - Oregon State and Washington State. Mountain West or American? place your bets.
 

You don't call a meeting of presidents with a vote scheduled unless you already know the outcome. They got someone to flip and it happened. Maybe NC State guy's great nephew will get into Stanford now.

Gotta feel for the Bay Area schools non-football teams. It's not just that every conf game is a flight, that was mostly already true, but the added distance, time in the air, and to the Eastern Timezone is the real kicker. Gonna be brutal.


Now on to rebuilding the PAC with MWC and AAC schools.

This would be a solid, head of the G group conf:

Wash St, Ore St, Gonzaga/Hawaii(football only), Fresno St, San Diego St, UNLV, New Mexico, Colorado St, Rice, Tulane
 

short ornery norwegian said:
and now the focus goes back to the remaining Pac-2 orphans - Oregon State and Washington State. Mountain West or American? place your bets.
Click to expand...
AAC would be double the money ($8m v. $4m) but does $4m mean much with the added travel costs? The MWC makes so much sense geographically and to some extent culturally but those are yesterday's considerations. If it comes down to money, there will be a gamble. AAC media contract has quite a bit of time left on it. Will it age as poorly as the ACC contract (at a G5 scope)? MWC expires I believe in two or three years. What would a new MWC media rights contract with OSU and WSU look like?
 


The most money is to stay as the PAC and get a new (downgraded) contract with that still much more recognizable brand. Will still be worth it for those MW and AAC schools negotiate and pay their buyouts. Smell ya later!
 

Will they keep the Atlantic Coast Conference or try to make a backronym for ACC like American Collegiate Conference?
 

fmlizard said:
Will they keep the Atlantic Coast Conference or try to make a backronym for ACC like American Collegiate Conference?
Click to expand...
Good idea.

Bigger joke? Name of the Big 10 or name of the Atlantic Coast Conference?

I think they should just call it the Big Conference.
 

MplsGopher said:
The most money is to stay as the PAC and get a new (downgraded) contract with that still much more recognizable brand. Will still be worth it for those MW and AAC schools negotiate and pay their buyouts. Smell You
Click to expand...
You can call a pile of crap whatever you want - its still a pile of crap. Calling a bunch of G schools the PAC isn't going to create value. The PAC is dead.
 



Does the PAC brand still have value?

we're talking about a conference that was badly mismanaged and received terrible advice from its leaders. A conference that could not hold its members together and fell apart.

does that sound like an attractive conference for other schools to join - or an attractive conference for potential media partners?

beyond that, from a logistical standpoint - no AAC or MWC school is going to leave for the PAC 2.0 without knowing how much media revenue it would receive. and no media partner is going to make a firm commitment without knowing which schools would be involved. "hey, give us a TV deal for our new conference." "So, who's in the conference?" "I don't know yet....."
 

And the AAC says no to WSU and OSU. MWC it is then.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230901_103547_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20230901_103547_Chrome.jpg
    246.8 KB · Views: 10

MplsGopher said:
You don't call a meeting of presidents with a vote scheduled unless you already know the outcome. They got someone to flip and it happened. Maybe NC State guy's great nephew will get into Stanford now.

Gotta feel for the Bay Area schools non-football teams. It's not just that every conf game is a flight, that was mostly already true, but the added distance, time in the air, and to the Eastern Timezone is the real kicker. Gonna be brutal.


Now on to rebuilding the PAC with MWC and AAC schools.

This would be a solid, head of the G group conf:

Wash St, Ore St, Gonzaga/Hawaii(football only), Fresno St, San Diego St, UNLV, New Mexico, Colorado St, Rice, Tulane
Click to expand...
They will definitely schedule longer trips against multiple opponents both ways to lessen the travel time change impact.
 

swede2 said:
www.espn.com

ACC adds Stanford, Cal, SMU beginning 2024-25

The ACC presidents and chancellors voted to add three schools -- Stanford, Cal and SMU -- beginning in the 2024-25 school year. It will bring the ACC to 18 members, with 17 playing football full time in the conference.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

Goodbye yesterday.
Click to expand...

I mean...this has to be them preparing for teams wanting to leave in the next couple years right? This marriage makes no sense at all to me.
 



MplsGopher said:
The most money is to stay as the PAC and get a new (downgraded) contract with that still much more recognizable brand. Will still be worth it for those MW and AAC schools negotiate and pay their buyouts. Smell ya later!
Click to expand...

I know you want to believe that...but no one will care about the "New" PAC anymore than they would the MWC or AAC. The PAC was popular because of the names in it. USC and UCLA were national brands. Oregon sort of bought their way to that status. Stanford is a school everyone knows for various reasons. They were the PAC. Without them, the brand is worth next to nothing, proof being look how worthless the conference became for broadcast after USC and UCLA decided to leave.

This would be like if every other Big Ten team left to form a new conference and Northwestern and Indiana recruited a bunch of MAC teams to form a new Big Ten. They aren't going to get any real cache out of it because those aren't the teams anyone watches the Big Ten games for.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather the PAC exists. But what you are proposing isn't the PAC and no one will really care about it. (ask the WCHA) So find a place you fit and go and just start anew. In 5 years no one will care about what the PAC was anyways. (until the Big Ten over-expands and forms a "Pacific Division")
 

I can't believe Stanford and Cal ended up in the ACC, thought the B1G would happen. Can we trade Rutgers and Maryland for them?
 



Well...I was hoping to add Stanford and another non-PAC team to make it a twenty team conference which would have allowed four 5-team divisions. West coast teams would have had 4 guaranteed Pacific time zone games. Oh well.
 

People feeling bad for Stanford and Cal non football athletes kinda makes me laugh. The football team pays their bills. Without the football team, most of those athletes wouldn't have a sport to play. I don't feel sorry for them at all. If you want to feel sorry for anyone, feel sorry for the fans.
 

I'm A Maroon 2! said:
People feeling bad for Stanford and Cal non football athletes kinda makes me laugh. The football team pays their bills. Without the football team, most of those athletes wouldn't have a sport to play. I don't feel sorry for them at all. If you want to feel sorry for anyone, feel sorry for the fan***
Click to expand...

FIFY
 

short ornery norwegian said:
looks like it happened. multiple sources reporting that the ACC has voted to add Cal, Stanford and SMU for the 2024 season.

voting NO were FSU, Clemson and North Carolina. that means N Carolina State flipped its vote from No to Yes.

why did this happen? - one theory - ESPN's deal with the ACC calls for the media rights deal to be renegotiated if the conference drops below 15 members. with the 3 additions, the ACC goes to 18 members. So, IF the three No vote schools leave, the ACC still has 15 teams.

and now the focus goes back to the remaining Pac-2 orphans - Oregon State and Washington State. Mountain West or American? place your bets.
Click to expand...

I'm late to the party here... wow, this is more huge news. The ACC?

I was thinking the Big Ten may vulch North Carolina some day...

Stanford in the ACC keeps ACC relevant -- especially for basketball.

Basketball men and woman are also within that dynamic. Think how all these moves impact basketball too.
 

SHGopher said:
I'm late to the party here... wow, this is more huge news. The ACC?

I was thinking the Big Ten might vulch North Carolina some day...

Stanford in the ACC keeps ACC relevant -- especially for basketball.

Basketball men and woman are also big sports with that dynamic. Think how all these moves impact basketball too.
Click to expand...
Wait...Stanford keeps the ACC relevant in basketball...a conference with, among others, UNC, Duke and VA??
 

Panthadad2 said:
Well...I was hoping to add Stanford and another non-PAC team to make it a twenty team conference which would have allowed four 5-team divisions. West coast teams would have had 4 guaranteed Pacific time zone games. Oh well.
Click to expand...
Not sure why people wanted Stanford at all.

Great stretch from 2009-2018

25/42 seasons of 5 or fewer wins from 1981-present
For context:
The gophers only have 18 seasons of 5 or fewer wins in that stretch
Illinois 22
Northwestern 25
 

USAF said:
Wait...Stanford keeps the ACC relevant in basketball...a conference with, among others, UNC, Duke and VA??
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the Big Ten will get UNC and Duke. If Stanford had also gone to the Big Ten...

I should clarify I assume North Carolina highly likely is headed to the Big Ten and 50/50% maybe Duke too.
 

SHGopher said:
I'm guessing that the Big Ten will get UNC and Duke. If Stanford had also gone to the Big Ten...

I should clarify I assume North Carolina highly likely is headed to the Big Ten and 50/50% maybe Duke too.
Click to expand...
If the big ten didn’t want Stanford then they don’t want Duke
 

Some guy said:
Not sure why people wanted Stanford at all.

Great stretch from 2009-2018

25/42 seasons of 5 or fewer wins from 1981-present
For context:
The gophers only have 18 seasons of 5 or fewer wins in that stretch
Illinois 22
Northwestern 25
Click to expand...

Not sure why some people want only the USCs, Notre Dame and Ohio State level football programs. Stanford is one of the best schools in the country, in a new large market, regional competition for the west coast teams, with a great overall athletic program, and a "match up" type football program for most existing B1G schools and would have fit well IMO. Regardless, that doesn't matter now.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Not sure why some people want only the USCs, Notre Dame and Ohio State level football programs. Stanford is one of the best schools in the country, in a new large market, regional competition for the west coast teams, with a great overall athletic program, and a "match up" type football program for most existing B1G schools and would have fit well IMO. Regardless, that doesn't matter now.
Click to expand...
I should’ve rephrased. I didn’t mean want. I meant I don’t see why some people thought the big ten would want those programs.
 


Panthadad2 said:
Not sure why some people want only the USCs, Notre Dame and Ohio State level football programs. Stanford is one of the best schools in the country, in a new large market, regional competition for the west coast teams, with a great overall athletic program, and a "match up" type football program for most existing B1G schools and would have fit well IMO. Regardless, that doesn't matter now.
Click to expand...
Don't lose hope. Does this marriage of Standford & Cal with the ACC really feel permanent? In a few years when the Big Ten & SEC peal off a few ACC schools, the deck reshuffles again, right?

I'm on record as saying Standford and Cal would be football only additions, but recent news says they are being added for all sports. Oops! I guess I should have added eventually:)
 

Permanent until 2036. Not even Florida State and Clemson can escape the gravity of that black hole GoR contract.

Mark your calendars now, I guess! The upper leagues should now be stable until we get into the 2030's. Nothing wrong with that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom