Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[CousinRicky]

10 hours ago, Rocky Style said:

San Deigo is good.  Now for fellow nature fans you have Boise which is around the corner from some epic national forest, Washington State which blew my Florida mind, and Colorado has mountains and a lot of Subarus for some reason.

Great in snow and ice. When we lived in NJ I was driving to work on a snowy day. Headed down a ramp off the Interstate which T'd into a road that ran along the Delaware. The anti-lock brakes worked overtime but still wasn't going to stop but when I reached the bottom I was able to steer through the turn and not end up in George Washington's favorite river. This was when a lot of this technology was new. Forever grateful for Subaru.

[puc86]

5 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

You raise excellent points.

First, FSU is stuck in the ACC.  That is not a gamble.  Two points in support of this:

• The lawsuits for FSU and Clemson will take years to complete. The ACC has no reason to settle them, and is unlikely to do so.  There are four lawsuits in question, all of them have to go through the legal process and then the appeal process.  That will take the three or four years, at best. 
• Second point here, there is a report the ACC is considering reworking their GOR to expire sooner (2030), with an alternative revenue distribution in the meantime.    This proposal, if it gets adopted, will likely mean FSU and Clemson will drop their lawsuits and remain in the ACC through the end of the decade.

Second, the rumored PAC 12 distribution is being rumored at $12 to $15 million.  That is more than the current $8M+ USF gets from the AAC.  Yes, travel costs will increase by $2 to $3M.  So, if the number is $12M, that basically is a break even for USF.  Anything above that becomes 'profit' in this scenario.  A business that has the chance to make $3M per year MORE would have to entertain that option.  I believe this number only makes sense because four AAC teams will join the six already in the PAC.

As for the AAC:

1. The exposure will get worse without Tulane, Memphis, and UTSA.  More games shifted to ESPN+, and the national perception the AAC has take a big step back.  That may or may not be worse than the PAC 12 -- we don't have any clue what the PAC 12 media deal will be - it will likely include some streaming along with over the air/cable.
2. As for the destinations consider losing New Orleans, Memphis, and San Antonio.  Replacing them with Boone (NC), Colorado Springs, and San Marcos (TX).  The only negative about the new destinations, really, is that other than Tulane and Memphis - USF fans will have to fly instead of drive.
3. Yes, travel for athletes will be negatively impacted - especially when you factor in the time differences.  However, that is offset with additional funds to support student athletes.
4. The path to the playoffs is better in the PAC 12 than the watered down AAC.  The same OOC in general plus better competition in the PAC 12 means a 10-2 PAC 12 team has a better chance than a 10-2 AAC team.  (A 12-0 team from any conference is likely in the CFP - see Liberty)

One thing you're not considering in the new PAC 12 -- attendance at the OCS will be higher.  In 2023, several games would not have sold out the OCS: Rice, Charlotte, and Temple did not come close to selling out.  But more recognizable names like Boise State, Wazzu, San Diego State will likely guarantee sell outs.

All things considered, I believe moving to the PAC 12 for 5 years is the better move than staying put for 5 years. 

 

Welcome to the team 

[puc86]

7 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Great in snow and ice. When we lived in NJ I was driving to work on a snowy day. Headed down a ramp off the Interstate which T'd into a road that ran along the Delaware. The anti-lock brakes worked overtime but still wasn't going to stop but when I reached the bottom I was able to steer through the turn and not end up in George Washington's favorite river. This was when a lot of this technology was new. Forever grateful for Subaru.

If there is one thing I hate it’s being able to safely and comfortably navigate all terrains 

[Peatearpan]

8 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

Great in snow and ice. When we lived in NJ I was driving to work on a snowy day. Headed down a ramp off the Interstate which T'd into a road that ran along the Delaware. The anti-lock brakes worked overtime but still wasn't going to stop but when I reached the bottom I was able to steer through the turn and not end up in George Washington's favorite river. This was when a lot of this technology was new. Forever grateful for Subaru.

Went to Co for a trip and we were upgraded to a Subaru for our rental. Really wanted one after that trip

[Bull Gooner]

20 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

You raise excellent points.

First, FSU is stuck in the ACC.  That is not a gamble.  Two points in support of this:

• The lawsuits for FSU and Clemson will take years to complete. The ACC has no reason to settle them, and is unlikely to do so.  There are four lawsuits in question, all of them have to go through the legal process and then the appeal process.  That will take the three or four years, at best. 
• Second point here, there is a report the ACC is considering reworking their GOR to expire sooner (2030), with an alternative revenue distribution in the meantime.    This proposal, if it gets adopted, will likely mean FSU and Clemson will drop their lawsuits and remain in the ACC through the end of the decade.

Second, the rumored PAC 12 distribution is being rumored at $12 to $15 million.  That is more than the current $8M+ USF gets from the AAC.  Yes, travel costs will increase by $2 to $3M.  So, if the number is $12M, that basically is a break even for USF.  Anything above that becomes 'profit' in this scenario.  A business that has the chance to make $3M per year MORE would have to entertain that option.  I believe this number only makes sense because four AAC teams will join the six already in the PAC.

As for the AAC:

1. The exposure will get worse without Tulane, Memphis, and UTSA.  More games shifted to ESPN+, and the national perception the AAC has take a big step back.  That may or may not be worse than the PAC 12 -- we don't have any clue what the PAC 12 media deal will be - it will likely include some streaming along with over the air/cable.
2. As for the destinations consider losing New Orleans, Memphis, and San Antonio.  Replacing them with Boone (NC), Colorado Springs, and San Marcos (TX).  The only negative about the new destinations, really, is that other than Tulane and Memphis - USF fans will have to fly instead of drive.
3. Yes, travel for athletes will be negatively impacted - especially when you factor in the time differences.  However, that is offset with additional funds to support student athletes.
4. The path to the playoffs is better in the PAC 12 than the watered down AAC.  The same OOC in general plus better competition in the PAC 12 means a 10-2 PAC 12 team has a better chance than a 10-2 AAC team.  (A 12-0 team from any conference is likely in the CFP - see Liberty)

One thing you're not considering in the new PAC 12 -- attendance at the OCS will be higher.  In 2023, several games would not have sold out the OCS: Rice, Charlotte, and Temple did not come close to selling out.  But more recognizable names like Boise State, Wazzu, San Diego State will likely guarantee sell outs.

All things considered, I believe moving to the PAC 12 for 5 years is the better move than staying put for 5 years. 

 

A lot of well thought out points here. If we assume all are true, could we also assume that a rejected PAC invitation is an indication of a different opportunity already in our back pocket?

[Dave_Glaser]

10 hours ago, hm101 said:

Joining the PAC means a gamble on: 

1. FSU staying stuck in the ACC - AND - 
2. The TV deal being worth it

We have in the AAC:

1. Good TV exposure
2. Good destinations for fans
3. Reasonable travel for athletes
4. A very good path to the playoffs, with our OOC SOS (next year: @ UF, @ UM, Boise State, FCS - 12-0 and we are in the CFP)

I'll say it again - in business you don't overreact to your competition's last move. You stick with your long term strategy. 

Vote AAC this November. Er, weekend. 

So if this guy is right - and the new PAC doesn’t pay the exit fee - schools have to come up with around $20-million to make this move, to basically go from one G5 league to another.

[belgianbull]

1 minute ago, Bull Gooner said:

A lot of well thought out points here. If we assume all are true, could we also assume that a rejected PAC invitation is an indication of a different opportunity already in our back pocket?

It better better be.

[Bob Loblaw]

26 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

You raise excellent points.

First, FSU is stuck in the ACC.  That is not a gamble.  Two points in support of this:

• The lawsuits for FSU and Clemson will take years to complete. The ACC has no reason to settle them, and is unlikely to do so.  There are four lawsuits in question, all of them have to go through the legal process and then the appeal process.  That will take the three or four years, at best. 
• Second point here, there is a report the ACC is considering reworking their GOR to expire sooner (2030), with an alternative revenue distribution in the meantime.    This proposal, if it gets adopted, will likely mean FSU and Clemson will drop their lawsuits and remain in the ACC through the end of the decade.

Second, the rumored PAC 12 distribution is being rumored at $12 to $15 million.  That is more than the current $8M+ USF gets from the AAC.  Yes, travel costs will increase by $2 to $3M.  So, if the number is $12M, that basically is a break even for USF.  Anything above that becomes 'profit' in this scenario.  A business that has the chance to make $3M per year MORE would have to entertain that option.  I believe this number only makes sense because four AAC teams will join the six already in the PAC.

As for the AAC:

1. The exposure will get worse without Tulane, Memphis, and UTSA.  More games shifted to ESPN+, and the national perception the AAC has take a big step back.  That may or may not be worse than the PAC 12 -- we don't have any clue what the PAC 12 media deal will be - it will likely include some streaming along with over the air/cable.
2. As for the destinations consider losing New Orleans, Memphis, and San Antonio.  Replacing them with Boone (NC), Colorado Springs, and San Marcos (TX).  The only negative about the new destinations, really, is that other than Tulane and Memphis - USF fans will have to fly instead of drive.
3. Yes, travel for athletes will be negatively impacted - especially when you factor in the time differences.  However, that is offset with additional funds to support student athletes.
4. The path to the playoffs is better in the PAC 12 than the watered down AAC.  The same OOC in general plus better competition in the PAC 12 means a 10-2 PAC 12 team has a better chance than a 10-2 AAC team.  (A 12-0 team from any conference is likely in the CFP - see Liberty)

One thing you're not considering in the new PAC 12 -- attendance at the OCS will be higher.  In 2023, several games would not have sold out the OCS: Rice, Charlotte, and Temple did not come close to selling out.  But more recognizable names like Boise State, Wazzu, San Diego State will likely guarantee sell outs.

All things considered, I believe moving to the PAC 12 for 5 years is the better move than staying put for 5 years. 

 

What this guy said. I’m on Team PAC. It all hinges on a good media deal and a short GoR. We need to continue building momentum for the Athletics program. Staying in a further watered down AAC is the opposite. 

[puc86]

1 minute ago, Bull Gooner said:

A lot of well thought out points here. If we assume all are true, could we also assume that a rejected PAC invitation is an indication of a different opportunity already in our back pocket?

No it would be indicative of failed leadership that fails to act continuing down their failing path to irrelevance. If you have nothing to announce then you have nothing, the road to insolvency is always paved with promises that never quite materialize because nothing happens to the super secret verbal deal guy that’s just trying to keep their options open. It’s been 12 years, wait 5 more to maybe see what could possibly happen? 

[hm101]

I've slept on it

My conclusion - I don't care. Well be fine either way. Will not impact my support either way. 

Go Bulls. Not go Pac, not go AAC, not even go P4/ACC/whatever. Go Bulls.