Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[TallyBull]

5 minutes ago, John Lewis said:

It's a valid question.

This is where the AAC needs to be proactive. Get Air Force and UNLV at this point.

Sadly UNLV is politically tied to Nevada, which nobody wants. Although I'd rather have Nevada than certain other teams in our conference.

Air Force seems like a no-brainer, if we can get them to unite with Navy and Army. Assuming nothing else really matters USF-wise, it just seems right to have all of the military academies in the same conference.

Edited September 13 by TallyBull

[Bear]

11 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

We're putting the conference on our back doe

USF needs to win the conference this year. 

It's a must at this point. 

If we do this, USF will be impossible to ignore in realignment. 

[Bob Loblaw]

44 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

It's less about the market speaking and more about who is already in FL.

That’s the market speaking. Too much supply outweighs demand. 

[Rocky Style]

4 minutes ago, Sk00b said:

But are we? I would say Tulane/Memphis are. We are trying but it's broke our back for 10 years.

This is the year!  Maybe 

[Rocky Style]

1 minute ago, Bob Loblaw said:

That’s the market speaking. Too much supply outweighs demand. 

I think its more like a monopoly stamping out the value we can add.  

[Bob Loblaw]

14 minutes ago, Bear said:

USF needs to win the conference this year. 

It's a must at this point. 

If we do this, USF will be impossible to ignore in realignment. 

Not winning consistently and not winning big moments - giant killer wins, conference wins, meaningful bowl wins - has been the biggest drag on the perception of USF as a value add. We have everything else. 

[BullyPulpit]

12 hours ago, M50_BULL said:

Yeah we're in a bad place right now.

We really screwed ourselves following the prestigious AAU status.

Man it's frustrating fighting for relevancy when it feels that everyone around us is on their A game.

P.S. don't sleep on the SBC, Tx State and J McCloud are looking good.

Yep. The UNIVERSITY of South Florida really screwed up by being focused on academic excellence. Tisk, tisk....

[USF_Bullsharks]

27 minutes ago, CF is NFL Jr said:

I don't think the ACC will go away, but there is a scenario where FSU and Clemson get out.  They cause a general panic with those teams that also have real value like UNC/Miami/UL/NCState.  The B12 with private equity money steps in to leverage the conference to make sure it is firmly the #3 conference.  They think of it as an investment in the future to protect when the breakaway from the NCAA happens. I think in particular Miami, UL, Pitt, VT are looking and being courted by the B12.  With those additions and the loss of Clemson and FSU the B12 is clearly conference #3.   So the ACC loses 6 or more teams and it backfills.  They don't go away but their statis and value is severely diminished. 

And so you're ignoring the most important thing in regards to realignment - money, athletic department budgets, and certainty of revenue streams. 

FSU and Clemson are leaving the ACC, there is no question there. The only question is what is the cost. We've already broken that down multiple times here (and a million other places on the internet) so we aren't going to argue over what that entails, but FSU themselves are estimating that the cost will be approximately $572MM. Let's just say they settle for 50% of that estimate - $285MM. Now round down a bit, an even $250MM. You think UM/UL/PITT/VT are going pay $250MM to leave the ACC to move to the B12 to make less money, increase their travel expenses and forgo the $500MM the league will earn combined from FSU Clemson? In what world does any of that make sense? Add in some loan from private equity, and that will reduce future revenue streams of the conference by what, 20% of the top line? It's a fanatical B12 talking point online as they were aggressive with the PAC, so it makes sense to copy/paste and fearmonger towards the ACC. The difference between two teams leaving the PAC, and two teams leaving the ACC, is that the ACC has a TV contract until 2036. The PAC completely failed to solidify the future of the conference, and other schools (4C) left due to the uncertainty of what the budget will be in the future. The B12 had that certainty, and could offer it to 4C schools, and that's what they did. The ACC could have done the same. But the B12 cannot offer any form of certainty to the ACC schools that the ACC doesn't already have. The only school I could see being interested in realignment from the ACC to the B12 is Louisville, whereas you can say the same about TCU and Kansas from the B12 to the ACC. 

[TallyBull]

5 minutes ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

And so you're ignoring the most important thing in regards to realignment - money, athletic department budgets, and certainty of revenue streams. 

FSU and Clemson are leaving the ACC, there is no question there. The only question is what is the cost. We've already broken that down multiple times here (and a million other places on the internet) so we aren't going to argue over what that entails, but FSU themselves are estimating that the cost will be approximately $572MM. Let's just say they settle for 50% of that estimate - $285MM. Now round down a bit, an even $250MM. You think UM/UL/PITT/VT are going pay $250MM to leave the ACC to move to the B12 to make less money, increase their travel expenses and forgo the $500MM the league will earn combined from FSU Clemson? In what world does any of that make sense? Add in some loan from private equity, and that will reduce future revenue streams of the conference by what, 20% of the top line? It's a fanatical B12 talking point online as they were aggressive with the PAC, so it makes sense to copy/paste and fearmonger towards the ACC. The difference between two teams leaving the PAC, and two teams leaving the ACC, is that the ACC has a TV contract until 2036. The PAC completely failed to solidify the future of the conference, and other schools (4C) left due to the uncertainty of what the budget will be in the future. The B12 had that certainty, and could offer it to 4C schools, and that's what they did. The ACC could have done the same. But the B12 cannot offer any form of certainty to the ACC schools that the ACC doesn't already have. The only school I could see being interested in realignment from the ACC to the B12 is Louisville, whereas you can say the same about TCU and Kansas from the B12 to the ACC. 

Excellent analysis. And, I might say, chock full of facts that are routinely ignored in what I will call the "realignment press" because they're in it for the clicks/follows, not the facts. Or, in some cases, because they are Big 12 partisans - not realists. 

[MMW]

27 minutes ago, Bear said:

USF needs to win the conference this year. 

It's a must at this point. 

If we do this, USF will be impossible to ignore in realignment. 

I don't agree that it's a must but it wouldn't hurt.  I don't think conference realignment is closely aligned to winning as people think. I think winning draws fans and eyeballs and that is important to realignment.