Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 995 | The Boneyard
.-.

Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

Stanford and Cal should have remained a part of the Pac 12. They would have received a share of the buyout money from the other members, increased the value of The PAC's new deal, and they wouldn't have to schlep their Olympic Sports across the country for next to no compensation. Their joining the ACC was the height of elitism. They would rather act in the opposite of their best interest but associate with UVA and Duke in doing so, as opposed to making money, having 1/10 of the travel, and allowing for a sense of normalcy for their athletes.
 
Ldandy said:
Stanford and Cal should have remained a part of the Pac 12. They would have received a share of the buyout money from the other members, increased the value of The PAC's new deal, and they wouldn't have to schlep their Olympic Sports across the country for next to no compensation. Their joining the ACC was the height of elitism. They would rather act in the opposite of their best interest but associate with UVA and Duke in doing so, as opposed to making money, having 1/10 of the travel, and allowing for a sense of normalcy for their athletes.
Expand ...
Il give you a half-like.

I agree with the sentiment, and it would have been better for all their student athletes. But let's not pretend that it's really about elitism...

... it's about more money...
 
Ldandy said:
Stanford and Cal should have remained a part of the Pac 12. They would have received a share of the buyout money from the other members, increased the value of The PAC's new deal, and they wouldn't have to schlep their Olympic Sports across the country for next to no compensation. Their joining the ACC was the height of elitism. They would rather act in the opposite of their best interest but associate with UVA and Duke in doing so, as opposed to making money, having 1/10 of the travel, and allowing for a sense of normalcy for their athletes.
Expand ...
You're asking them to choose a conference only slightly above the American instead of the ACC?

Yes their athletes could've had less travel. I suspect the athletes prefer NIL, TV exposure, better competition, and better facilities since the school is bringing in $30M more per year. If athletes don't like it, they won't go there or they'll transfer.

If the PAC stabilizes and Stan/Cal wants less travel in 5-10 years, the PAC will welcome them back with open arms.

Grabbing on to the only life vest thrown your way is not elitism.
 
UConnDan97 said:
Il give you a half-like.

I agree with the sentiment, and it would have been better for all their student athletes. But let's not pretend that it's really about elitism...

... it's about more money...
Expand ...
By the time they are able to collect real money, in around 5-7 years, The ACC will be strip mined of its most valuable resources by the SEC and B1G. They’ll spend all these years flying their women’s soccer and men’s tennis teams to the East Coast for the promise of something in the future. Who knows if that promise will be fulfilled?
 
.-.
Stanford and Cal only make sense in the B1G or ACC based on like-minded institutions, with the B1G the clear favorite. Supposedly, the B1G wanted to add them when they added Oregon and Washington, but FOX would only pay for Oregon and Washington, so they were not added.

If the B1G had added Stanford and Cal, that would have been 2 fewer seats for the real ACC schools.
 
Rufus said:
Supposedly, the B1G wanted to add them when they added Oregon
Expand ...
According to who?

And let’s be clear if they WANTED to add them, they would have. There’s no law that says you can’t earn $95 million per school instead of $100.
 
Ldandy said:
By the time they are able to collect real money, in around 5-7 years, The ACC will be strip mined of its most valuable resources by the SEC and B1G. They’ll spend all these years flying their women’s soccer and men’s tennis teams to the East Coast for the promise of something in the future. Who knows if that promise will be fulfilled?
Expand ...
I've been hearing about the ACC implosion for at least 10 years. It hasn't yet. They still have the support of ESPN.

Making financial plans based on the guess that the ACC is no longer here in 5 years instead of a guaranteed contract today isn't what smart financial people would do. And I'm guessing that Stanford and Cal had a few smart financial people in the building when they signed the paperwork...
 
.-.
UConnDan97 said:
I've been hearing about the ACC implosion for at least 10 years. It hasn't yet. They still have the support of ESPN.

Making financial plans based on the guess that the ACC is no longer here in 5 years instead of a guaranteed contract today isn't what smart financial people would do. And I'm guessing that Stanford and Cal had a few smart financial people in the building when they signed the paperwork...
Expand ...
The ACC is more stable than the Big XII in my opinion. Either is a lifeline for UConn, but there is no world where somehow either the ACC or Big XII matches the SEC/B1G by poaching the other league. They both have way too many meh to poor programs for that. There would be no point to any school leaving one of those leagues for the other unless it was for geographic cohesion/rivalries. WVU and Cinci should be with Pitt and VT. Stanford and Cal should be with the AZ and Utah schools.
 
HuskyHawk said:
The ACC is more stable than the Big XII in my opinion. Either is a lifeline for UConn, but there is no world where somehow either the ACC or Big XII matches the SEC/B1G by poaching the other league. They both have way too many meh to poor programs for that. There would be no point to any school leaving one of those leagues for the other unless it was for geographic cohesion/rivalries. WVU and Cinci should be with Pitt and VT. Stanford and Cal should be with the AZ and Utah schools.
Expand ...

Depends on what you mean by stable.

Nobody wants any Big 12 schools. They aren’t going anywhere.

The ACC has a members that could appealing, UNC, Miami, UVA and Duke.

The ACC still makes more money but they are more likely to get poached.
 
UConnDan97 said:
I've been hearing about the ACC implosion for at least 10 years. It hasn't yet. They still have the support of ESPN.

Making financial plans based on the guess that the ACC is no longer here in 5 years instead of a guaranteed contract today isn't what smart financial people would do. And I'm guessing that Stanford and Cal had a few smart financial people in the building when they signed the paperwork...
Expand ...
Stanford and Cal joined and took a reduced share from the ACC because they had no place else to go. The Big 10 wanted them, but the media partners weren't willing to pay for them so they didn't get invited to the Big 10. If the Big 10 offers Stanford and/or Cal, they would leave the ACC yesterday.
 
UConnJim said:
Stanford and Cal joined and took a reduced share from the ACC because they had no place else to go. The Big 10 wanted them, but the media partners weren't willing to pay for them so they didn't get invited to the Big 10. If the Big 10 offers Stanford and/or Cal, they would leave the ACC yesterday.
Expand ...
I don't think the BigTen would want Stanford or Cal anymore. 20 years ago, sure. Great academic schools with lots of cable boxes. Rutgers got the cable box invite, but it's too late for Cal and Stanford. Nobody cares about the schools' football teams, and that's what gets you an invite nowadays.
 
Chuck said:
Nobody cares about the schools' football teams, and that's what gets you an invite nowadays.
Expand ...
I'm not sure that's actually correct.

I suspect that we will know what the Big Ten if and when it announces expansion, and not before.
 
.-.
That Oregon got in and Cal and and Stamford were passed over is 180 degree turn from the B1G philosophy of just a few years ago .
I think they realized in the playoff era conference football on field dominance is a much more important piece of the puzzle than before for survival. "
Once schools thought shoe ins like Virginia and even UNC take note , they are however flagship ,but I’m not sure that as big a metric as before . Which mean FSU or Clemson might sneak past them
 
Chuck said:
I don't think the BigTen would want Stanford or Cal anymore. 20 years ago, sure. Great academic schools with lots of cable boxes. Rutgers got the cable box invite, but it's too late for Cal and Stanford. Nobody cares about the schools' football teams, and that's what gets you an invite nowadays.
Expand ...
I disagree. It all comes down to how large the P2 conferences will become and how does it make financial sense for the media partners. I really don't think 4 West Coast schools makes sense for the Big 10 and I would think they will add 2 to 3 old Pac 12 schools in the future.
 
UConnJim said:
Stanford and Cal joined and took a reduced share from the ACC because they had no place else to go. The Big 10 wanted them, but the media partners weren't willing to pay for them so they didn't get invited to the Big 10. If the Big 10 offers Stanford and/or Cal, they would leave the ACC yesterday.
Expand ...
Yes, but so long as we both acknowledge that nothing you've typed implies that the ACC will implode or that the PAC12 will be similar money...
 
AZHuskiePop said:
That Oregon got in and Cal and and Stamford were passed over is 180 degree turn from the B1G philosophy of just a few years ago .
I think they realized in the playoff era conference football on field dominance is a much more important piece of the puzzle than before for survival. "
Once schools thought shoe ins like Virginia and even UNC take note , they are however flagship ,but I’m not sure that as big a metric as before . Which mean FSU or Clemson might sneak past them
Expand ...
FSU has a big problem in having a bad coach, same thing in Miami. To go 2-10 with all the talent FSU has is a situation where you should be fired. Miami has a coach who every year has a what the duckk moment where he loses a game he should win. The Big doesn't need those problems.
 
baggerbob said:
FSU has a big problem in having a bad coach, same thing in Miami. To go 2-10 with all the talent FSU has is a situation where you should be fired. Miami has a coach who every year has a what the duckk moment where he loses a game he should win. The Big doesn't need those problems.
Expand ...

They were literally a QB injury away from winning the national championship 18 months ago. You can’t fire him in a rebuild year right after that, especially in the portal era.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
433
Guests online
3,661
Total visitors
4,094
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,379
Messages
4,477,949
Members
10,351
Latest member
XF Support s2LH


Top Bottom