ACC votes to add Stanford, Cal, SMU: Conference presidents approve expansion to 18 schools

[king conn]

I'm pretty sure that all carriage deals include the main ESPN channels along with the ACCN & SECN. Now what tier they are on is a whole different matter

If they are not on the basic tear then they cannot charge everyone. That's where they make their money

 

[ramses 2.0]

If they are not on the basic tear then they cannot charge everyone. That's where they make their money

Everyone on whatever tier the network appears on

 

[king conn]

Everyone on whatever tier the network appears on

Which is way less people and money for espn than if it was on basic

 

[ramses 2.0]

Which is way less people and money for espn than if it was on basic

Yeah I understand that, all I'm saying that whatever tier each cable company & ESPN agreed to pay the extra fee. Now it doesn't matter to me since I ditched cable/sat years ago & currently use Google Fiber/YouTube TV

 

[upstater]

Yeah I understand that, all I'm saying that whatever tier each cable company & ESPN agreed to pay the extra fee. Now it doesn't matter to me since I ditched cable/sat years ago & currently use Google Fiber/YouTube TV

But how long are these contracts with the distributors? At the first expiration, the cable companies are going to say NO.

 

[billybud]

Tomorrow never knows.

 

[billybud]

We'll be streaming in a few years,,,

 

[ramses 2.0]

But how long are these contracts with the distributors? At the first expiration, the cable companies are going to say NO.

Don't know & by the time some of these are up for renewal ESPN's DTC service will be up & running. I would think that the Disney/Charter deal lays the groundwork for most future cable/sat deals

 

[upstater]

Don't know & by the time some of these are up for renewal ESPN's DTC service will be up & running. I would think that the Disney/Charter deal lays the groundwork for most future cable/sat deals

Either way ESPN's service won't differentiate by state so there's really no plus in getting more states like they just did. And I doubt anyone will have interest in keeping the $1 charge per customer after the current contracts run out

 

[peyton1211]

https://x.com/jwmediadc/status/1711532239115178248?s=46

 

[Rufus]

https://x.com/jwmediadc/status/1711532239115178248?s=46

If the ACC is vetting Tulane, USF, Memphis, UAB, ECU and Tulsa "in order of interest", that tells me two things:

1. The ACC knows it is about to lose its biggest brands.
2. UConn is a lot farther down the list of potential replacements than I would ever have imagined.

 

[Gburyhusky]

If the ACC is vetting Tulane, USF, Memphis, UAB, ECU and Tulsa "in order of interest", that tells me two things:

1. The ACC knows it is about to lose its biggest brands.
2. UConn is a lot farther down the list of potential replacements than I would ever have imagined.

You may be correct, but if the ACC is going to lose its biggest brands then why would you want to get into a conference with what remains? To be in a league with Stanford and Cal?

 

[Rufus]

You may be correct, but if the ACC is going to lose its biggest brands then why would you want to get into a conference with what remains? To be in a league with Stanford and Cal?

Agree. The SEC and B1G will take whoever they want from the ACC.

It's possible the Big 12 can swoop in and take what they want afterwards too. Depends on how things fall.

If the Big 12 can pick off teams, UConn won't want any part of whatever is left of the ACC. If the ACC can fend off the Big 12, it might be a viable landing spot for UConn.

The only certain is that teams wanted by one or both of the SEC and B1G will be gone.

 

[buddy]

Agree. The SEC and B1G will take whoever they want from the ACC.

It's possible the Big 12 can swoop in and take what they want afterwards too. Depends on how things fall.

If the Big 12 can pick off teams, UConn won't want any part of whatever is left of the ACC. If the ACC can fend off the Big 12, it might be a viable landing spot for UConn.

The only certain is that teams wanted by one or both of the SEC and B1G will be gone.

Problem I see is that everyone will be taken and UConn will be left standing without a chair. Just like now.

 

[Tfoyle]

If the ACC is vetting Tulane, USF, Memphis, UAB, ECU and Tulsa "in order of interest", that tells me two things:

1. The ACC knows it is about to lose its biggest brands.
2. UConn is a lot farther down the list of potential replacements than I would ever have imagined.

I don't think the ACC would need to do any vetting for UConn. If anything, I'm surprised Nova isn't on that list.

 

[LoyalFanCT]

Did the ACC vet UConn a dozen years ago when the morons from Louisville stole our spot?

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If they are seriously looking at ECU and UAB, they're planning on losing at least ten current members.

 

[uconnric]

If the ACC is vetting Tulane, USF, Memphis, UAB, ECU and Tulsa "in order of interest", that tells me two things:

1. The ACC knows it is about to lose its biggest brands.
2. UConn is a lot farther down the list of potential replacements than I would ever have imagined.

If the ACC is vetting those schools (they already know plenty about us), then they are planning on a doomsday scenario. The bottom half of the league must be jumping for joy reading this.

 

[Orc]

https://x.com/jwmediadc/status/1711532239115178248?s=46

I’d rather be in the big east than be in the same league with those schools. Yuck.AAC all over

 

[KryHavok]

If the ACC is vetting Tulane, USF, Memphis, UAB, ECU and Tulsa "in order of interest", that tells me two things:

1. The ACC knows it is about to lose its biggest brands.
2. UConn is a lot farther down the list of potential replacements than I would ever have imagined.

A lot farther down, as in not even being listed on the page. They. Don't. Want. Us. I used to think we'd be a natural fit for the ACC, but their constant middle finger to us makes me want them all to fail. I say that knowing that having their payout or fraction thereof would immensely help UConn athletics. Shoot at this rate CCSU has a better chance of going FBS and getting into the MAC than UConn getting invited to the A¢¢.

 

[buddy]

A lot farther down, as in not even being listed on the page. They. Don't. Want. Us. I used to think we'd be a natural fit for the ACC, but their constant middle finger to us makes me want them all to fail. I say that knowing that having their payout or fraction thereof would immensely help UConn athletics. Shoot at this rate CCSU has a better chance of going FBS and getting into the MAC than UConn getting invited to A Athletic Conference.

I'm pretty sure we are monitoring the situation, though.

 

[KryHavok]

I'm pretty sure we are monitoring the situation, though.

Fat lotta good that'll do. That's like me monitoring the Mega Millions drawing: it's ALWAYS gonna be someone else (rather, some other school) getting rich.

 

[CL82]

I'm pretty sure we are monitoring the situation, though.

 

[huskymedic]

-> The ACC “didn't get as much of a basketball lift from this wave of expansion as its rivals did,” according to ESPN’s John Gasaway, who observes that over the past five seasons, Stanford, Cal and SMU“recorded an average adjusted efficiency margin of +5.58. That's a good deal weaker than what we see from soon-to-be newcomers to the Big Ten(+14.71), the Big 12 (+14.90) and the SEC(+17.58).” Gasaway also points out the trio “collectively has not won an NCAA Tournamentgame since 2014” while “Cal and SMU rank near the bottom of the nation's (current or soon-to-be) major conference programs in terms of performance over the past five seasons. For that matter, current ACC members like Boston College, Wake Forest, Pitt and Georgia Tech are in much the same statistical boat. Which means in a year's time the ACC will have six members that, for now, rank among the bottom 12 nationally for performance over the past five seasons.” (link) <-

Is expansion good for ACC men's college basketball?

The 30,000-foot perspective says Stanford, Cal and SMU joining the ACC is good for both the schools and the league. Let's take a closer look though.

www.espn.com

 

[JeepCSC]

ACC hoops look to remain top-heavy.

 

[uchusky32]

-> The ACC “didn't get as much of a basketball lift from this wave of expansion as its rivals did,” according to ESPN’s John Gasaway, who observes that over the past five seasons, Stanford, Cal and SMU“recorded an average adjusted efficiency margin of +5.58. That's a good deal weaker than what we see from soon-to-be newcomers to the Big Ten(+14.71), the Big 12 (+14.90) and the SEC(+17.58).” Gasaway also points out the trio “collectively has not won an NCAA Tournamentgame since 2014” while “Cal and SMU rank near the bottom of the nation's (current or soon-to-be) major conference programs in terms of performance over the past five seasons. For that matter, current ACC members like Boston College, Wake Forest, Pitt and Georgia Tech are in much the same statistical boat. Which means in a year's time the ACC will have six members that, for now, rank among the bottom 12 nationally for performance over the past five seasons.” (link) <-

Is expansion good for ACC men's college basketball?

The 30,000-foot perspective says Stanford, Cal and SMU joining the ACC is good for both the schools and the league. Let's take a closer look though.

www.espn.com

On to Tulane, ECU and Memphis!

 

[CL82]

They could have, if that was their goal:

For that matter, if they wanted to improve their postseason success, the choices equally clear:

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

They could have, if that was their goal:

View attachment 92062

For that matter, if they wanted to improve their postseason success, the choices equally clear:View attachment 92063

Thirty wins, baby!!!

 

[KryHavok]

"Which means in a year's time the ACC will have six members that, for now, rank among the bottom 12 nationally for performance over the past five seasons.”

Gee, for a conference that seems to have some academically rigorous institutions, they sure made a bunch of dumb@$$3d decisions.

 

[Kolumbo]

No matter which way the rules of CR blow, the ACC gets it wrong every single time. At least this round it managed to grab a flagship state u . . . check that. Cal isn't a flagship. Seriously, Cal might be a worse addition than rutgers. It's as if the ACC watches what the SEC and B1G do, and then pulls a Costanza, does the opposite, and grabs mediocrity by the horns.