PAC-12 Chaos

[The Yakk]

ACC is essentially the east coast version of the PAC with Clemson and FSU their USC and UCLA. They only have one time zone

Yes, but it is one helluva time zone!

 

[tzznandrew]

Yes, but it is one helluva time zone!

Seriously, it's the time zone that gives me real hope the B12 will pick us up.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There is literally nothing more annoying on Twitter than the "I told you so" tweets from people that were just throwing spaghetti against a wall.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

ACC is essentially the east coast version of the PAC with Clemson and FSU their USC and UCLA. They only have one time zone and no true viewing interests beyond ET.

If Clemson and FSU bolt in 2036 or sooner there’s not gonna be enough seats left when the music stops.

Anyone who makes an argument whose premise is "football drives the bus" has no idea why any of the realignment moves are happening.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I am hoping the PAC-9 can somehow hold it together until UCONN is in the B12. Schools like Washington State and Oregon State should be pushing hard for PAC-9 to add 3 schools ASAP. Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon should go along just to buy some time before they get into the B1G. We need the PAC-9 to hold it together for a few years. After UCONN gets into the B12, PAC-12 can fall apart.

 

[tzznandrew]

Anyone who makes an argument whose premise is "football drives the bus" has no idea why any of the realignment moves are happening.

The "football at the forefront" based moves haven't really worked out all that well. It's obviously a factor, and having some football history or a solid program is obviously paramount.

But yeah, people putting FSU and Clemson—and even Miami!—at the top of the ACC heap are seriously misjudging.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The ACC is royally hosed if the Big 12 gets UConn, because then the ACC would not have a single region where it actually controlled the market.

 

[Hoophound]

The ACC is royally hosed if the Big 12 gets UConn, because then the ACC would not have a single region where it actually controlled the market.

I think the problem they have is that FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA etc. will block anything that strengthens the ACC. They just want to be let out so they can go to the B1G or SEC. The ACC probably missed the boat on survival through expansion.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think the problem they have is that FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA etc. will block anything that strengthens the ACC. They just want to be let out so they can go to the B1G or SEC. The ACC probably missed the boat on survival through expansion.

That would be both stupid and suicidal by those schools to do that. The best thing they can do for their resumes to the SEC and Big 10 is to win in a strong conference. Destroying the ACC is like burning your own house to the ground while standing inside it. The ACC has been pretty stupid over the years, but even that league is smarter than to destroy itself just to teach its members a lesson.

 

[Hoophound]

That would be both stupid and suicidal by those schools to do that. The best thing they can do for their resumes to the SEC and Big 10 is to win in a strong conference. Destroying the ACC is like burning your own house to the ground while standing inside it. The ACC has been pretty stupid over the years, but even that league is smarter than to destroy itself just to teach its members a lesson.

I’m not sure they will hurt themselves at all by doing this. They will hurt the schools with no place to go.

 

[Rufus]

I’m not sure they will hurt themselves at all by doing this. They will hurt the schools with no place to go.

Bingo. Speaking of...........there are rumblings FSU is going to start the process of challenging the GOR next week. Flugaur reported it at the end of his PATC live show tonight.

 

[businesslawyer]

He may be laughing. He’s also correct, there’s no realistic amount that ESPN can add to the ACC deal at this time that would keep the ACC’s top schools in the fold past 2036 GIVEN CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES. 2036 is also a very long time so who knows what things will look like by then.

Clemson, also, is in a small market in a small state, isn’t a flagship, and is looked at as “maybe SEC” simply because for a few years it was one of 2 dominant programs in the country. If Clemson goes back to anywhere near its historical mean by ‘36, the SEC would have no interest. Getting into FL with FSU has reasons beyond the team is super hot and winning, but that’s all Clemson’s interest is based on.

 

[businesslawyer]

Yes, with now nine teams left, and two of them looking vigorously to leave, it reeks of desperation.

Can we be fair? Losing USC and UCLA put it on an entirely different footing, and losing UW and Oregon would make it hard to survive as a major conference. But losing Colorado, if it doesn’t start an exit, has no material effect whatsoever. Colorado is east of the Rockies and for the dozen years it was in the conference sucked in football and was well below average in hoops. The direct effect of them leaving is minimal.

Yes, if it causes a panic, that’s another matter. But if you’re UW, or UA, seriously, why do you care.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Clemson, also, is in a small market in a small state, isn’t a flagship, and is looked at as “maybe SEC” simply because for a few years it was one of 2 dominant programs in the country. If Clemson goes back to anywhere near its historical mean by ‘36, the SEC would have no interest. Getting into FL with FSU has reasons beyond the team is super hot and winning, but that’s all Clemson’s interest is based on.

SEC already has U Florida and U South Carolina. Also, it’s an ESPN league. I agree with you Clemson is trendy but they have history too. Still, why would ESPN agree to pay more (in the SEC) for two schools it has locked up until 2036 in the ACC. That’s always been a flaw in the assumption that they could leave.

 

[uconnyankee]

If that is true, then waiting until 2036 is a death sentence to the remaining members. Why not start building the conference now that they want then when Clemson and whoever leaves?

If it isn't true, and I don't think it is, when why not make the conference stronger now so they avoid the inevitable collapse?

I actually think ESPN will approach the ACC in a few years to try to end that contract early. A linear contract like that will not be viable for ESPN in 2030.

I think that’s the point people have been making. I’ve compared the ACC to Shrodingers cat. It’s alive, but it’s dead at the same time.

The schools that want out can’t get out without some crazy financial cost, and the dead weight will cling for their AD lives because the other options are worse.
So they have 13 years to figure something out.

 

[uconnyankee]

Can we be fair? Losing USC and UCLA put it on an entirely different footing, and losing UW and Oregon would make it hard to survive as a major conference. But losing Colorado, if it doesn’t start an exit, has no material effect whatsoever. Colorado is east of the Rockies and for the dozen years it was in the conference sucked in football and was well below average in hoops. The direct effect of them leaving is minimal.

Yes, if it causes a panic, that’s another matter. But if you’re UW, or UA, seriously, why do you care.

This is a great point.
Losing Colorado isn’t a big deal to Pac. The damaging blow was the LA schools.

That’s what makes me think this mass exodus of the corner schools is overblown. I could be wrong.

Colorado has a history with Big 12. The others, not so much

 

[tzznandrew]

This is a great point.
Losing Colorado isn’t a big deal to Pac. The damaging blow was the LA schools.

That’s what makes me think this mass exodus of the corner schools is overblown. I could be wrong.

Colorado has a history with Big 12. The others, not so much

The problem for the other schools is that there aren't really appealing backfill programs, either athletically or academically. You're looking at SDSU, Fresno, Utah State, Colorado State, etc. So, you get back to 10 or 12 with some meh schools, but there's no room for growth and a clear ticking time bomb with the B1G, since the LA schools alone make no sense and you have no media deal in place right now...

 

[HuskyHawk]

Can we be fair? Losing USC and UCLA put it on an entirely different footing, and losing UW and Oregon would make it hard to survive as a major conference. But losing Colorado, if it doesn’t start an exit, has no material effect whatsoever. Colorado is east of the Rockies and for the dozen years it was in the conference sucked in football and was well below average in hoops. The direct effect of them leaving is minimal.

Yes, if it causes a panic, that’s another matter. But if you’re UW, or UA, seriously, why do you care.

The speculation, and that’s all it is, is that Colorado leaving creates hesitation among the media partners they are talking to and reduces a deal that was already a tough sell. Losing CU athletics, ok. But losing Denver one of the fastest growing metro areas and one dominated by the Buffs? That’s going to cost them.

Hypothetically, maybe you had a $24m deal, now cut to say $22m a school. The $ gap could be such that even the schools who really don’t want to go to the Big XII will consider it.

 

[JeepCSC]

The ACC is in a worse position than the B12 but not because they were better managed. The B12 was raided half a dozen times. So now the B12 is benefitting from Texas money/love of football, and being fairly undesirable to the P2 conferences. The ACC remained (mostly) intact, which unfortunately is not an asset for conferences not named the SEC or B10.

 

[upstater]

Anyone who makes an argument whose premise is "football drives the bus" has no idea why any of the realignment moves are happening.

I would say this is 100% correct.

The premise includes the proposition that Iowa St. versus Kansas st. draws eyeballs, or hell, Texas Tech versus Cincinnati (when/if those teams are ranked, then maybe, but otherwise... that's not what people mean when they say football drives the bus).

 

[CTMike]

There is literally nothing more annoying on Twitter than the "I told you so" tweets from people that were just throwing spaghetti against a wall.

But it’s fine when you do it on the boneyard? Got it.

 

[NE Football]

The ACC is in a worse position than the B12 but not because they were better managed. The B12 was raided half a dozen times. So now the B12 is benefitting from Texas money/love of football, and being fairly undesirable to the P2 conferences. The ACC remained (mostly) intact, which unfortunately is not an asset for conferences not named the SEC or B10.

The ACC is in a much better position than the B12. They have their own network, major brands in football and basketball and they are tied together for 13 more years. The ACC remains the best fit for us. As BC continues to go down their clout diminishes greatly within the ACC. We need to invest in Mora and sellout our games

 

[Patman]

The ACC is in a worse position than the B12 but not because they were better managed. The B12 was raided half a dozen times. So now the B12 is benefitting from Texas money/love of football, and being fairly undesirable to the P2 conferences. The ACC remained (mostly) intact, which unfortunately is not an asset for conferences not named the SEC or B10.

The ACC is in a worse position because everybody knows their major players are gone as soon as they can and do not want to accept more bodies.

 

[uconnyankee]

The problem for the other schools is that there aren't really appealing backfill programs, either athletically or academically. You're looking at SDSU, Fresno, Utah State, Colorado State, etc. So, you get back to 10 or 12 with some meh schools, but there's no room for growth and a clear ticking time bomb with the B1G, since the LA schools alone make no sense and you have no media deal in place right now...

There are backfills, but the PAC had elitist visions of who they could add. SDSU was always available. They basically replace Colorado. If the assumption was Colorado gone, backfill with sdsu and move on

If they assumed Colorado stayed, then it was SDsU and SMU to get back to 12. Now maybe throw in Tulane and they could still get back to 12.

Still don’t think Colorado is this huge impetus for defections. None of the other schools want the Big 12.

 

[ctchamps]

Clemson, also, is in a small market in a small state, isn’t a flagship, and is looked at as “maybe SEC” simply because for a few years it was one of 2 dominant programs in the country. If Clemson goes back to anywhere near its historical mean by ‘36, the SEC would have no interest. Getting into FL with FSU has reasons beyond the team is super hot and winning, but that’s all Clemson’s interest is based on.

Never understood the Clemson to SEC theory. They have somewhere between a quarter and a third the states support normally. Obviously riding the recent success and that success is notable but if it crashes and burns they would bring very little value to the SEC. North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, FSU and Georgia Tech theoretically have better value than Clemson. Heck UConn could have more value to the SEC if the football program reaches a modicum of sustained success.