Some Random Thoughts on Conference Realignment

Chop said:
They've got to salvage what they can out there on the West Coast. They could also lean on the state politicians for UCLA, Washington, and Oregon. If they can't keep any of those, then maybe:

Stanford
Cal
Wash St
Oregon St
Air Force
Colorado St
Hawaii
San Diego St
UNLV
Fresno St

+ a few basketball (and other non-football sports) only schools, like:
Gonzaga
UCSB
Click to expand...
MORE RANDOM THOUGHTS

1) it i getting worse not better with every move.
2) If Nebraska is in a western division with UCLA/USC/W/O and others, Neb will not have a winning season most years. They don't have the recruits or the NIL money.
3) Why in the world would anyone pay to stream any conference that has 70 percent of their football product worth less than a random basketball game?
4) Other than a few major conferences a conference with a perennial basketball program is not a basketball conference. Most college programs will suffer going forward. Some will make even more.
 
LonghornDave said:
MORE RANDOM THOUGHTS

1) it i getting worse not better with every move.
2) If Nebraska is in a western division with UCLA/USC/W/O and others, Neb will not have a winning season most years. They don't have the recruits or the NIL money.
3) Why in the world would anyone pay to stream any conference that has 70 percent of their football product worth less than a random basketball game?
4) Other than a few major conferences a conference with a perennial basketball program is not a basketball conference. Most college programs will suffer going forward. Some will make even more.
Click to expand...
Not sure if Neb even cares anymore. As for every move making things worse... gotta disagree there. Anytime one gets to replace Lubbock, Waco, and Stillwater with Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa, and Auburn... a massive upgrade has occurred.
 
Funny that the ACC wasn't an instant 'yes' to Stanford. Knock that Indian, I mean, Cardinal ego down a peg, if that's even possible.
 
Noted columnist George F. Will can answer that question.
https://wapo.st/45G1FjD

And the short answer is yeah, it's totally about $$$ now.

The “realignment” of the preeminent conferences, including the swift and ignominious collapse of one of them, serves common sense. Realism has displaced the fog of sanctimony and semantic obfuscations that suddenly are laughable and unnecessary. Big-time college football has shucked off the accumulated hypocrisies that have encrusted it and now stands before us with an agreeable lack of pretense: It is an unembarrassable money machine, nothing more. Football factories such as the Universities of Alabama and Georgia more closely resemble Amazon and Google than the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) and Rutgers teams that in 1869 played the first intercollegiate “football” game. (Rutgers won, 6-4, as about 100 spectators witnessed something resembling a cross between rugby and a rumble.)

The realignment carousel accelerated in 2021 when the Universities of Texas and Oklahoma announced they would defect from the Big 12 to the Southeastern Conference, where the annual per-team television payout is millions better. Who knew the nation’s Southeast extends to Norman, Okla.?
 
LonghornCatholic said:
Sources: ACC ramps up Cal, Stanford, SMU talks
Click to expand...

Interesting thought I read elsewhere. The ACC could add Cal and Stanford as football only members. All other sports could make/join/expand a west conference to lower travel costs. SMU with no revenue for seven years would require full membership and probably be smart to get the ACC in the Lone Star State. It would also let Clemson and FSU get more revenue than the other members. Of course, their departure is inevitable but perhaps that delays it until 2036 when the GOR expires.
 
Not too excited about any of this....nothing for ACC to gain....why would SMU agree to no revenue for 7 years...IMO, nothing of this fits
 
Statalyzer said:
Absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Yes, but is adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC going to make money? SMU? Are FSU and Clemson going to make more money or get more eyes if they play SMU or Cal or Stanford? Can any ACC team except ND, challenge the SEC in Texas or UCLA and USC or Oregon or Wash. in California? I don't think so. This is just chaos.
 
LonghornDave said:
Yes, but is adding Stanford and Cal to the ACC going to make money? SMU? Are FSU and Clemson going to make more money or get more eyes if they play SMU or Cal or Stanford? Can any ACC team except ND, challenge the SEC in Texas or UCLA and USC or Oregon or Wash. in California? I don't think so. This is just chaos.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe, yes, no, respectively.

Adding Stanford and Cal at a reduced rate gets more money for FSU and Clemson because everyone will agree to give them the difference. Those two will still leave by 2036, so that keeps the conference at 14. Adding SMU gets the ACC in the Lone Star State. There's no other equal or bigger school in the state who will say yes. That leaves spot #16 open for ND to join in football. Plus it's reasonable to expect UNC and at least one Virgina-based school to leave the ACC so SMU keeps the number of members above 12.
 
Somewhere on the cliffs above Half Moon Bay:

"Son, you've made it into Stanford, congrats! And you got a full scholarship to play on Stanford's badminton team. You're a legacy, it's become a family tradition. So study hard, network and mingle, form a successful company, and you too can raise your family here, right on the beautiful Atlantic Coast."
 
ACC adds Stanford, Cal, SMU beginning 2024-25

SMU to the ACC
along with Stanford and Cal



Weird geography there.

Best ACC comparisons I can think of:
SMU is kind of similar to Wake Forest, or maybe even BC
Cal -- UVA with the academics, but culturally??? Syracuse is the closest I've got
Stanford -- Duke (lots of similarities there)
 
Stanford is a big brand. They'll be wanted if there's another realignment. The B1G was dumb not to take them. If they wanted 2, take USC and Stanford.
 
Chop said:
Above all--SMU must keep the Triple DDD helmets!!!
Click to expand...
The D takes a relatively clean and recognizable helmet and adds a ? I just don't see an SMU v any ACC team (except ND) drawing any eyes or fans in seats. Same with Cal. Did ESPN want this?
 
SMU had to forgive $$$ for seven years. However, they are one of the few who have proven they can live without tv $$$. All they have to do is send the AD out to either the corner of Hillcrest or Preston and Mockingbird with a sign asking for donations.
 
It's all going to be for naught in a few years when FSU/Clemson join the SEC and the B1G/SEC partner up to form the "Premier League" of college football. The ACC and XII can also borrow from English football and call themselves "Championship" league.
 
ViperHorn said:
SMU had to forgive $$$ for seven years. However, they are one of the few who have proven they can live without tv $$$. All they have to do is send the AD out to either the corner of Hillcrest or Preston and Mockingbird with a sign asking for donations.
Click to expand...
Or $15,000 per plate SMU fundraising dinners at the Crescent Club.
(chump change for so much of the Pony crowd...)
 
Dave, agree with you on this....who wants to watch any of these new 'rivalry' games?? There is nothing natural about these teams to create any rivaly.

Stanford vs? Cal vs ? SMU vs Duke or WF?

Why do you emphasize SMU v ND?
 
so what happens to Oregon St and Wash St....become members of the Mountain West? Or create a new conference with the best of the west?

Much of this realignment business does very little for me and does nothing to create new, natural rivalries with exception of UT and OU to the SEC. Some of these teams in these 18 team conferences will play each other only once every 4-6 years just like the SEC has been doing....they are all getting too large to have natural rivalries that normally take years to develop.
 
Chop,

Where does there real money come from?

Enter the circular drive off Mockingbird and read those buildings:

1) Moody Coliseum

2) Fondren Library

3) Edwin Cox School of Business

4) Robert Dedman Law School

5) School & building named after Mrs Dedman

6) Another School after the Dedmans

7) Building escapes me but son was a freshman when I was

What do they all have in common? They all went to THE UNIVERSIITY OF TEXAS

I tell them if it wasn't for us, they wouldn't have a school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top