College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

But there is enormous risk here for the ACC. If they open up that GOR, and Clemson and FSU aren’t happy with the results, there may not be an ACC.

More specifically, FSU and Clemson are obviously unhappy with their competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis, the SEC and Big Ten. My recollection is that the only opportunity to open the GOR early is if teams are added to the ACC. If you represent FSU or Clemson, why would you agree to add Stanford and Cal as full or partial share members if the end result is that you continue to be locked in to the unacceptable status quo?

No. The GOR never opens for existing teams. New teams are required to sign on to the GOR in full. The GOR does not open --- there is a specific clause that deals with new schools. The GOR does not deal with the payout. That is done outside the GOR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

They want to be in what was called the Power 5 once upon a time. Ivy will never ever admit anyone else even Stanford. BC ad Duke both want to play top teams and get Thursday night games. That is what they want. They also like the money they get. My point is that they do not want or need $50 million extra from a one time payout and play in some second tier conference. They would rather get no extra money and play in a top conference. Top changes all the time but right now it is SEC or Big10 or Big12. Neither Duke nor BC will take any deal where they are not in those conferences.

The Ivy League would admit schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, U Chicago, & MIT in a heartbeat, but none of those schools are interested in stepping down to the Ivy League. My reference to BC & Duke joining the Ivy League was intended to be humorous.

Ivy would not. MIT and UChicago are D3 and do not have football. They would take Duke or NW under any circumstances. Stanford is closer but no they would not take them.

Quick somebody tell U Chicago's football team is just a figment of their imagination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

But there is enormous risk here for the ACC. If they open up that GOR, and Clemson and FSU aren’t happy with the results, there may not be an ACC.

More specifically, FSU and Clemson are obviously unhappy with their competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis, the SEC and Big Ten. My recollection is that the only opportunity to open the GOR early is if teams are added to the ACC. If you represent FSU or Clemson, why would you agree to add Stanford and Cal as full or partial share members if the end result is that you continue to be locked in to the unacceptable status quo?

No. The GOR never opens for existing teams. New teams are required to sign on to the GOR in full. The GOR does not open --- there is a specific clause that deals with new schools. The GOR does not deal with the payout. That is done outside the GOR.

Just like Notre Dame ???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

But there is enormous risk here for the ACC. If they open up that GOR, and Clemson and FSU aren’t happy with the results, there may not be an ACC.

More specifically, FSU and Clemson are obviously unhappy with their competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis, the SEC and Big Ten. My recollection is that the only opportunity to open the GOR early is if teams are added to the ACC. If you represent FSU or Clemson, why would you agree to add Stanford and Cal as full or partial share members if the end result is that you continue to be locked in to the unacceptable status quo?

No. The GOR never opens for existing teams. New teams are required to sign on to the GOR in full. The GOR does not open --- there is a specific clause that deals with new schools. The GOR does not deal with the payout. That is done outside the GOR.

Just like Notre Dame ???

They would have to sign if they joined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

Agree with the first part but there is no way there will be investor money to fund this lawsuit. They will fund a settlement. The outcome is not good. You could not get anyone to fund -- except alums and even they don't have that kind of cash.

Agree, but a show of force is often enough to get folks to the table and engage on a reasonable level regarding a settlement.

A show of force? If FSU offers 1.2 billion it will be considered. If they want to borrow it or sell their rights to Wall Street for the money nobody cares. Still might not be agreed to.

Some of us deal in the real world where business decisions typically involve some degree of bargaining and compromise while others may choose a hard-headed fight to the death type approach.

sigh. You are playing checkers. Chess is the game. What do the ACC schools that can't go anywhere want? It is not money. Duke and BC are loaded. What they want is a power conference. In other words they do not want the dollars -- they want the conference. So go ahead and sue us. You can't move until the litigation is over and appeals are over. No conference would touch you. Best case you sue and three years later you can move because you won. But three years from now there may be no slots. You will be screwed. The ACC schools that can't get anywhere else are not going to be reasonable. Why would they. They have you over a barrel. You can't give them what they want. The ACC has to either expand or get taken by the SEC and Big10.

When I read statements like this, it is clear that you are--to use a word from your prior post--delusional.

I was not the PP you referred to. Duke and BC have large endowments. Football is important to both schools but not the most important. Neither needs money. BC's last fund raising campaign raised $1 billion over a year or so. They are about to start another. What those schools care about here is playing in a top conference. Playing in a crappy conference but getting a bunch of money does nothing for either school. They are not playing the game you think they are. That is why there will be a real look at expanding the ACC. That is the easiest course for everyone. Breaking up is not in the cards.

BC & Duke may not be "playing the game" because neither school is invited.

Anyone who states that Duke & BC are not interested in money from athletics or that Duke & BC have enough money cannot be taken seriously. However, if truly the case, then why not join the Ivy League as it is an athletic conference ? Or what do you mean by a "top conference " ?

Also, if neither BC nor Duke needs money, then return the checks to the ACC so that the conference can increase payouts to FSU & Clemson.

They want to be in what was called the Power 5 once upon a time. Ivy will never ever admit anyone else even Stanford. BC ad Duke both want to play top teams and get Thursday night games. That is what they want. They also like the money they get. My point is that they do not want or need $50 million extra from a one time payout and play in some second tier conference. They would rather get no extra money and play in a top conference. Top changes all the time but right now it is SEC or Big10 or Big12. Neither Duke nor BC will take any deal where they are not in those conferences.

The Ivy League would admit schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, U Chicago, & MIT in a heartbeat, but none of those schools are interested in stepping down to the Ivy League. My reference to BC & Duke joining the Ivy League was intended to be humorous.

Ivy would not. MIT and UChicago are D3 and do not have football. They would take Duke or NW under any circumstances. Stanford is closer but no they would not take them.

Quick somebody tell U Chicago's football team is just a figment of their imagination.

my mistake. Still D3 though.

[Anonymous]

(OP here)

Regarding the possible move of Cal & Stanford to the ACC: The only justifiable reason for the ACC to offer Cal & Stanford would be to attract Notre Dame to the ACC as a full football member. Otherwise, the additional travel costs would effectively lessen each ACC member's payout.

If Stanford & Cal joined the ACC, it is likely that both football programs would deteriorate as football player recruits would shun both schools as no player would want to endure constant cross-country travel--not even for a "free" Stanford degree.

At this point, the options for Stanford & Cal are bleak as even the Big 12 Conference has indicated that it is done with expansion.

I doubt that Stanford & Cal will drop their respective football programs, but neither football program could survive as an independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(OP here)

Regarding the possible move of Cal & Stanford to the ACC: The only justifiable reason for the ACC to offer Cal & Stanford would be to attract Notre Dame to the ACC as a full football member. Otherwise, the additional travel costs would effectively lessen each ACC member's payout.

If Stanford & Cal joined the ACC, it is likely that both football programs would deteriorate as football player recruits would shun both schools as no player would want to endure constant cross-country travel--not even for a "free" Stanford degree.

At this point, the options for Stanford & Cal are bleak as even the Big 12 Conference has indicated that it is done with expansion.

I doubt that Stanford & Cal will drop their respective football programs, but neither football program could survive as an independent.

Your first sentence is right. This only works with ND coming in now or in the next couple of years. But the time is likely now. Travel costs would go up a bit but not a lot. And I think other west coast schools would come in so it would only be 2-3 trips east a year. Right now both schools do 1-2 so not a big increase.

Where I disagree is on the recruiting. Stanford would be not impacted no matter what they do. But as I said above -- travel would not be so bad and that is not among the top 45 things a high school recruit thinks about. they would be thinking about playing ND, FSU, Miami, and Clemson and dreaming of national championships. And Cal recruiting would expand to the east coast. Stanford recruiting is already east coast.

[Anonymous]

If ND's hand is forced, they are going to the Big10 not the ACC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

If ESPN isn't willing to pay the SEC for extra games, why would they want to pay the ACC for more games?

https://www.si.com/college/2023/06/01/sec-schedule-eight-games-greg-sankey-meetings

Because of the geographic change. Advertisers pay more for new markets.

Advertisers pay for ratings- something that Cal and Stanford lack. The Big10 and Big12 already passed on them, I doubt the ACC ends up taking them

Cal and Stanford are not at the very bottom of the P5 ratings wise either, which is why the Big12 really should act. Both were better in down years last year than any of the 4 new schools that will be in the Big12 this year (per SI).

[Anonymous]

A lot is likely to change with the ACC too. I don't think Stanford and Cal are desperate to get something done this week knowing that the landscape could change. Short-term recruiting could be damaged but no one is signing anytime soon either. They have a few months to figure things out and could really wait until next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

But there is enormous risk here for the ACC. If they open up that GOR, and Clemson and FSU aren’t happy with the results, there may not be an ACC.

More specifically, FSU and Clemson are obviously unhappy with their competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis, the SEC and Big Ten. My recollection is that the only opportunity to open the GOR early is if teams are added to the ACC. If you represent FSU or Clemson, why would you agree to add Stanford and Cal as full or partial share members if the end result is that you continue to be locked in to the unacceptable status quo?

No. The GOR never opens for existing teams. New teams are required to sign on to the GOR in full. The GOR does not open --- there is a specific clause that deals with new schools. The GOR does not deal with the payout. That is done outside the GOR.

FSU and Clemson would go ballistic-er

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Describing Cal & Stanford as "middling football programs with dispassionate fan bases", Sports Illustrated.com article asserts that joining ACC makes sense:

https://si.com/college/2023/08/08/acc-expansion-interest-california-stanford-making-sense

Is a broadcaster willing to pay $42 million a year to air Cal and Stanford games? Unless the answer is yes, adding them will cost ACC members money

I do not think you get how this works. ESPN will increase their payout to the SEC if they pick up the California markets. At worst it would be revenue neutral to the ACC or it will not happen. ACC will not do anything that would cut their payout. They are talking to ESPN now in real time about how this would work. As stated above, the ACC is not going to have just 2 west schools. They would also add others that will bring in other markets.

Maybe and maybe not. The Big12 contract explicitly contains pro-rata increases for new P5 teams. The Big10 was more careful because their contract does not. We do not know what is in the ACC contract. If adding them requires negotiation, the question becomes how much is Cal football worth to Disney. My guess would be not very much

Adding NorCal for games and SoCal by extension is worth a lot. My point was twofold. They are talking to ESPN at the same time they are talking to Cal and Stanford. They will not do anything that cuts the payout to FSU and Clemson.

If ESPN isn't willing to pay the SEC for extra games, why would they want to pay the ACC for more games?

https://www.si.com/college/2023/06/01/sec-schedule-eight-games-greg-sankey-meetings

Because of the geographic change. Advertisers pay more for new markets.

Advertisers pay for ratings- something that Cal and Stanford lack. The Big10 and Big12 already passed on them, I doubt the ACC ends up taking them

Cal and Stanford are not at the very bottom of the P5 ratings wise either, which is why the Big12 really should act. Both were better in down years last year than any of the 4 new schools that will be in the Big12 this year (per SI).

Utah had better ratings than either school, the other three all had better ratings than Cal.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-were-the-most-watched-in-2021-49ef4f315858

The Big12 has already said they are done expanding for now; 4 teams is a lot to absorb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here)

Regarding the possible move of Cal & Stanford to the ACC: The only justifiable reason for the ACC to offer Cal & Stanford would be to attract Notre Dame to the ACC as a full football member. Otherwise, the additional travel costs would effectively lessen each ACC member's payout.

If Stanford & Cal joined the ACC, it is likely that both football programs would deteriorate as football player recruits would shun both schools as no player would want to endure constant cross-country travel--not even for a "free" Stanford degree.

At this point, the options for Stanford & Cal are bleak as even the Big 12 Conference has indicated that it is done with expansion.

I doubt that Stanford & Cal will drop their respective football programs, but neither football program could survive as an independent.

Your first sentence is right. This only works with ND coming in now or in the next couple of years. But the time is likely now. Travel costs would go up a bit but not a lot. And I think other west coast schools would come in so it would only be 2-3 trips east a year. Right now both schools do 1-2 so not a big increase.

Where I disagree is on the recruiting. Stanford would be not impacted no matter what they do. But as I said above -- travel would not be so bad and that is not among the top 45 things a high school recruit thinks about. they would be thinking about playing ND, FSU, Miami, and Clemson and dreaming of national championships. And Cal recruiting would expand to the east coast. Stanford recruiting is already east coast.

Disagree on all of the bolded statements.

Few, if any, 4 star recruits would consider Cal football under any circumstances. Classes are huge--several classes have 1,000 students at Cal--and the San Francisco area is viewed negatively as a city in decline with severe homeless issues and crazed politicians.

Football recruits think about travel a lot.

Stanford's recruiting would suffer--we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Travel costs would be about an extra $10 million per year for Stanford & Cal. If offered, the ACC most likely will only offer a reduced share payout of about $30 million for many years.

Among academics, Cal may have a good reputation on the East Coast for its graduate programs, but Cal is not well regarded in the Southeast US by the typical sought-after football recruit.

[Anonymous]

If Stanford and Cal join the ACC, will that run up the traveling cost for all ACC schools? For non-revenue generating sports, I would think this is a big problem should Stanford and Cal become members of the ACC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Stanford and Cal join the ACC, will that run up the traveling cost for all ACC schools? For non-revenue generating sports, I would think this is a big problem should Stanford and Cal become members of the ACC.

Of course it will. Flying entire teams across the country costs more than chartering a coach. It will also make it very hard on sports that have midweek conference games