College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

12-3 vote with NC State flipping.

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SMU, CAL, & STANFORD to become new ACC members.

SMU will receive no TV revenue for 9 years.

Cal & Stanford will start by receiving 30% shares each.

https://cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-votes-to-add-stanford-cal-smu-conference-presidents-approve-expansion-to-18-schools/

I hope SMU got the pledges from donors vowing to support the athletic department in writing. I wonder what non-revenue sports will get cut at Stanford and Cal once the athletics department realizing how much travel will cost

I suspect that SMU donors and supporters did it even better than in writing by giving assurances in cash.

8 years is a long ways away. Unless they paid all of it up front, it's going to be interesting to see how long they are willing to fly mens soccer across the county now that they have what they want with football. Unlike most schools, SMU doesn't even pretend to care about other sports. Here's there athletic department's landing page https://smumustangs.com/

They've had some good basketball teams. If they make the NCAA tourney and do really well in football like the alums are convinced they can, SMU will still make good $$ (broadcast media revenue, which they won't get, is the biggest pot but not everything).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12-3 vote with NC State flipping.

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

NC State said, "suck on that Carolina"
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/unc-womens-soccer-coach-i-want-cal-and-stanford-to-die-on-the-vine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worry about the Stanford and Cal athletic departments. They both, especially Stanford, play a large number of sports. Both have also had major financial issues in the last decade. I wonder how things will play out less money for so long.

They will both do ok. Payout in total with still be over 20 some million. Much more than the other options. There was no better optio for them. AAU just dropped out of other Pac12 schools. It was this or MW/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of the articles that I have read claim that the ACC Presidents vote for expansion was unanimous--so I wonder which school or schools flipped. My best guess is that Clemson flipped as possible SEC membership would be unlikely due to opposition from in-state rival Univ. of South Carolina--but, this is pure speculation.

NC State flipped

Explains why UNC trustees released reports yesterday that UNC remained firmly opposed to the addition of the 3 schools. Major concern--as shared by two UNC trustees yesterday--was the increased travel burden for athletes, coaches, and fans.

The top four ACC programs are FSU, Clemson, UNC, and U Miami as viewed by the Big Ten and by the SEC. NC State had no assured landing spot if the ACC endured dramatic changes over the next couple of years.

[Anonymous]

This move will strengthen the GOR. The agreement is what the agreement is and the law is what the law is but the addition of three new teams signing up will push any equities away from programs leaving unless they give notice now. And they cannot. There has been some reporting that USC opposes Clemson coming into the SEC ad they will do all they can to veto that.

[Anonymous]

Any source regarding which team (allegedly NC State) flipped ? (The twitter source cited above is bs as one must wade through dozens of twitter posts to try to find the relevant post--if it exists.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worry about the Stanford and Cal athletic departments. They both, especially Stanford, play a large number of sports. Both have also had major financial issues in the last decade. I wonder how things will play out less money for so long.

Yes, having been in the Bay Area and on/near Stanford's campus for most of the last decade, I'm shocked they still have the same AD. They tried to cut several sports unsuccessfully and have seen their football and basketball teams struggle. That is usually a recipe for a leadership change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any source regarding which team (allegedly NC State) flipped ? (The twitter source cited above is bs as one must wade through dozens of twitter posts to try to find the relevant post--if it exists.)

No but it is pretty widely reported now. That would have been changed if there were issues with it.

[Anonymous]

It would be interesting if Notre Dame now moved to the Big Ten Conference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This move will strengthen the GOR. The agreement is what the agreement is and the law is what the law is but the addition of three new teams signing up will push any equities away from programs leaving unless they give notice now. And they cannot. There has been some reporting that USC opposes Clemson coming into the SEC ad they will do all they can to veto that.

Texas entering over Texas A&M's objection is the only time the SEC has added a second school in a state. I think USC will have more of a voice than TAMU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about the Stanford and Cal athletic departments. They both, especially Stanford, play a large number of sports. Both have also had major financial issues in the last decade. I wonder how things will play out less money for so long.

Yes, having been in the Bay Area and on/near Stanford's campus for most of the last decade, I'm shocked they still have the same AD. They tried to cut several sports unsuccessfully and have seen their football and basketball teams struggle. That is usually a recipe for a leadership change.

The cut of those sports was not real. It was a plan to get alums to pony money up which they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be interesting if Notre Dame now moved to the Big Ten Conference.

ND loves this. They now need to go nowhere. They may up the number of games they will play against ACC.

[Anonymous]

Cal will have to cut several non-revenue sports teams as the increased costs of frequent cross-country travel will destroy the athletic budget and will harm the student athletes' mental health and ability to attend class.

Stanford has wanted to cancel several non-revenue Olympic sports for a couple of years and now will be justified in doing so.

A Stanford degree may be attractive to some football & basketball recruits, but the issue is whether it will be enough to get athletes to live in airports and on planes. Four years of hell in the heavens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about the Stanford and Cal athletic departments. They both, especially Stanford, play a large number of sports. Both have also had major financial issues in the last decade. I wonder how things will play out less money for so long.

Yes, having been in the Bay Area and on/near Stanford's campus for most of the last decade, I'm shocked they still have the same AD. They tried to cut several sports unsuccessfully and have seen their football and basketball teams struggle. That is usually a recipe for a leadership change.

The cut of those sports was not real. It was a plan to get alums to pony money up which they did.

Stanford was not short of money. Stanford has the 3rd largest endowment (over $36 billion) among all US colleges & universities. I do understand that increasing the athletic dept. budget involves more than just having a large institutional endowment.

Regardless, the quality of life for Cal & Stanford athletes just plummeted.