Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[BiggTipp]

11 hours ago, michibull said:

If the ACC lost FSU, Clemson, UNC and Miami; this still looks way better than the B12

 

 

ACC Football

 

Boston College              Pittsburgh

California                        SMU

Duke                                South Florida

Georgia Tech                  Stanford

Louisville                         Syracuse

UCONN                           Virginia

NC State                         Virginia Tech

Memphis                         Wake Forrest

And I don’t see these “leftover” schools leaving in a haste for the B12, I think the media deal would be really good for this, enough for everyone to stay. 

Personally I believe this is the future of USF football. I do feel like this alignment would be similar to the Big 12 in the fact there will be true parody with no elite "Blue Bloods" in the conference. There are teams in the SEC and B10 who NEVER have a chance of winning those conferences. This lineup doesn't look that way to me. I feel however, that Miami and UNC really don't have plans to go anywhere. 

I really would like a different team other than UCONN..I just hate those guys. But I do understand the basketball draw. Maybe Miami stays? Tulane?

 

I think the PAC 12 idea is terrible. It will be nothing more than AAC 2.0. What about the teams they added will entice a network to pay $20M per school? There is a reason nobody

[CousinRicky]

Judging by the number of pages I skipped thru there must be something happening that isn't good for USF. So, nothing has changed over the last 10 years?

[Outlaw]

38 minutes ago, M50_BULL said:

Yes... It's a dirty game that's played nowadays. College athletics are basically minor pro leagues more than ever.

The needle mover for realignment has been success in athletics, not academic prestige.

Realignment to a better conference is a huge deal, I would argue a bigger deal than AAU.

You can be an academically successful UNIVERSITY and not be AAU accredited, yet be cru$hing it in athletics.

Hindsight is 20/20 so I'll see myself out...

Only one power conference cares about Aau status  the b1g. Unless we get called to the b1g over better programs from the acc that are aau , then the aau does nothing for athletics. I prefer to have top notch athletic program than Aau status.  My boss never offered be a raise for having an AAU degree from usf, but when I worse My usf gear proudly after the Bama game I got lots of that was a great game and we were rooting for usf. The public and fans care more about athletics  than aau status. 

[Brad]

1 minute ago, CousinRicky said:

Judging by the number of pages I skipped thru there must be something happening that isn't good for USF. So, nothing has changed over the last 10 years?

[CF is NFL Jr]

56 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. 

I am assuming that when Clemson and FSU leave it is because their exit costs are manageable and nowhere near what you are proposing.  There is a reason that there are lawsuits.  I don't think Clemson or FSU are paying $250M to get out.  I know FSU does not have that kind of $$.  It will be less than that and it will be paid over time if it happens at all.  That is where the private equity comes in to offset those costs and make the B12 a more valuable asset for the next round of negotiations.  These programs and conferences, if they want to survive, need to be playing the long game which means costs now and value later.  

The question was asked show me a scenario where the ACC implodes.  I gave what I think is possible.  I also think it is a mistake for the USF administration to assume what you think will happen.  What happens if FSU and Clemson find some common ground and the ACC stay intact (until the GOR runs out or gets smaller) and Memphis and Tulane go to the PAC12?  Then where are we? 

[aroth]

Unless the PAC lands a better TV deal than the AAC, this is much ado about nothing. Maybe there’s already an analysis or handshake agreement saying that will happen , but for now it looks like a west coast AAC equivalent. At some point they’re going to dilute the conference like the AAC has done.

[belgianbull]

31 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Judging by the number of pages I skipped thru there must be something happening that isn't good for USF. So, nothing has changed over the last 10 years?

To summarize what happened is that the PAC came back to live and added Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, and CSU, and now will be looking for more teams to add. Hence the nervousness since many believe that Tulane, UTSA, and Memphis might be on top of their list  and could be on their way out of the AAC. Personally i believe what happened yesterday could be a huge positive as long as we can hitch a ride with Tulane and Memphis

[MMW]

1 hour ago, M50_BULL said:

Yes... It's a dirty game that's played nowadays. College athletics are basically minor pro leagues more than ever.

The needle mover for realignment has been success in athletics, not academic prestige.

Realignment to a better conference is a huge deal, I would argue a bigger deal than AAU.

You can be an academically successful UNIVERSITY and not be AAU accredited, yet be cru$hing it in athletics.

Hindsight is 20/20 so I'll see myself out...

It's a school not an athletic department.  I know I should consider my environment when I say this, but most people don't care about football or athletics.  I have 3 kids in college (UF&FSU) and a 4th about to start.  None of them gave conference alignment or football/athletic success a millisecond of thought.

Most college kids focus on what job they can get after college (or they should) and winning a national championship in football doesn't do much in that regard.  Academics have an impact on that.  Nobody cares about athletics except older sports junkies. 

 

[Jim Johnson]

2 hours ago, 00Bull said:

Critical point…what is the AAC going to be getting when it renews after being raided once and now possibly twice? Not being argumentative but seems AAC is going in the wrong direction for renegotiating a higher payout

Whether the ACC gets "raided" depends on the payout.  Losing UTSA and Tulsa is not gonna hurt affect the TV payout.

Plus... let's not forget Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston paid $17 million to leave quickly.  So Tulane, Memphis, UTSA, etc would have to pay that as well.

The AAC gets around $8M per year for media.  If the PAC gets $10 million for a six year deal, that's $12 million.  Meaning AAC schools would lose $5 million in the long run.  Sure the PAC could offer to subsidize some of that....  but then you have to worry about travel costs for the team.

If the PAC gets $15 million, that would be something to consider.  It would suck to play on the west coast, but the extra money would more than cover the travel and provide more resources for student athletes and coaches.

 

[MMW]

53 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

My boss never offered be a raise for having an AAU degree from usf, but when I worse My usf gear proudly after the Bama game I got lots of that was a great game and we were rooting for usf. The public and fans care more about athletics  than aau status. 

You've said this several times and I'm not sure you're aware of how raises work. A degree from USF might have helped you get a job out of college but the rest is up to you.

Academic standing is important to recruiters hiring kids out of college. 

There is a pecking order in this state and it's based on academics and the caliber of students attending a university not football, conference alignment or any of that.