College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ UVA, UNC, Miami, BC, Wake all Cal level.”

Only at USNWR. In the real world, Berkeley is definitely a tier or two above those mentioned.

How do statements like this help your case ?

It is as though you insist on bringing just a knife to a gun fight.

If Berkeley is so superior academically, then why associate with the ordinaries of the ACC or the Big Ten or the Big 12 or the SEC as it is clear that Berkeley belongs in the Ivy League.

That wasn’t the point at all. Saying that Miami, BC, and Wake Forest are at Berkeley’s academic level doesn’t mean that they can’t play sports together. It’s like Vanderbilt in the SEC. It’s academically superior to every other school in that conference, with the possible exception of Florida. I didn’t initially bring up the academic issue, but I’m not going to ignore silly statements that aren’t accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ UVA, UNC, Miami, BC, Wake all Cal level.”

Only at USNWR. In the real world, Berkeley is definitely a tier or two above those mentioned.

How do statements like this help your case ?

It is as though you insist on bringing just a knife to a gun fight.

If Berkeley is so superior academically, then why associate with the ordinaries of the ACC or the Big Ten or the Big 12 or the SEC as it is clear that Berkeley belongs in the Ivy League.

That wasn’t the point at all. Saying that Miami, BC, and Wake Forest are at Berkeley’s academic level doesn’t mean that they can’t play sports together. It’s like Vanderbilt in the SEC. It’s academically superior to every other school in that conference, with the possible exception of Florida. I didn’t initially bring up the academic issue, but I’m not going to ignore silly statements that aren’t accurate.

Again, how does this statement help your case ?

Do you realize that you are self-destructive ?

You do not seem to understand the point of your own posts. Think about your objective before you write. Maybe your pride is blocking your commonsense as you seem to be your own worst enemy. Are you a graduate of UCal-Berkeley ?

[Anonymous]

(OP here)

CNN, citing "multiple sources", reports that the ACC is in exploratory talks with Cal & Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(OP here)

CNN, citing "multiple sources", reports that the ACC is in exploratory talks with Cal & Stanford.

That would put those schools at a competitive disadvantage, having to travel cross country for all of the away matches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(OP here)

CNN, citing "multiple sources", reports that the ACC is in exploratory talks with Cal & Stanford.

The interesting effect of all this is that these schools that are supposed to be intelligent are looking like they are stupid planners and on top of that panicky.

[Anonymous]

Stanford and Cal are distressed assets right now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here)

CNN, citing "multiple sources", reports that the ACC is in exploratory talks with Cal & Stanford.

The interesting effect of all this is that these schools that are supposed to be intelligent are looking like they are stupid planners and on top of that panicky.

WSU's president put out a statement saying how shocked they were by the Pac12 exits and that they thought a TV deal was imminent. Meanwhile r/CFB has been correctly predicting all of this since USC and UCLA announced they were joining the Big10

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(OP here)

CNN, citing "multiple sources", reports that the ACC is in exploratory talks with Cal & Stanford.

That would put those schools at a competitive disadvantage, having to travel cross country for all of the away matches.

No it will not for three reasons. 1. ACC would not be done. It would add 2-5 West Coast or close schools. 2. Not different than Big10. Also SEC will in the next while go more national as well so all of the conferences would be in the same place. 3. looking at 4 away games in the east. Not all that crazy. They travel 1-2 times long as it is. Not a big increase.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

The American Athletic Conference--a G5 conference--is also considering Cal & Stanford.

[Anonymous]

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.