Stanford to the ACC? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - grendalor - 08-29-2023
(08-29-2023, 08:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: There's some logic to comparing Stanford to Northwestern or Vanderbilt or Duke because of academics, but I don't think history bears out that they're comparable programs. We're in the Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BYU, Nebraska (oh the irony) ballpark. If conference realignment is going where many here and I suspect in terms of a super league, our prospects are more with that latter set of schools than the Rutgers or Cals or academic schools people talk about (unless we decide to opt out). Ultimately, I think it will depend a lot on what the model of college football looks like, the number of teams in a super league, what happens to Stanford in the interim along multiple dimensions (e.g., if we don't find a home now maybe our exit gets accelerated), etc. If the top echelon of college football gets set at 40 schools, Stanford absolutely can be in that group.
The comparison is in terms of TV draw, fanbase, university/alumni commitment to the football program -- not the on-field performance. In no way are we in the same ballpark as WVU, Nebraska, VT, or even Pitt (although their level of support is more similar to ours than the other ones in that list, their size outweighs that somewhat but not completely), in those measures. Not even close, really. Those are rabid, heavily engaged fan and alumni bases. Performance isn't markedly different, but that isn't what is critical for TV revenue, it's being an interesting enough environment for TV games.
Like I said, we have been getting by (in football at least) due to having occasionally great runs on the field, despite the fact that we have nothing like the kind of support that the teams you mention in that group do, because we have been a longtime member of one of the oldest athletic conferences. I realize that there are differences of opinion as to how much this matters, and I think it matters quite a bit, on the margins, when you are comparing the value of adding schools to another conference or a future super-conference. The Olympic sports will count for zero, as well, when it comes to a super league -- it will be all football.
In any case, that is an issue for the future. And who gets into a future super conference will, ultimately, depend to a significant degree on their performance between now and then, as well -- certainly.
----
----
Quote:Vanderbilt hasn't had a winning season since 2013.
Right. The point is that Vandy wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting an invite to the ACC in 2023, yet they are in no danger of being dropped from the SEC despite their consistent underperformance across the board, because they're already there. If the Pac-12 weren't going away, we wouldn't be worried about our value relative to schools elsewhere, because it doesn't matter if you are in an established conference as long as it doesn't go away. If/when there is a super-conference, Vandy and NU will almost certainly be sitting outside of that, even though today they are respectively sitting in one of the two top conferences, by virtue of history more than present merit, and they will be in the same position we are in now, only worse off because they are weaker in value than we are.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-29-2023
Decision is going to be in a holding pattern for several days.
“Commissioner Jim Phillips is going to go to Dallas for the CFP meetings Wednesday,” Thamel said.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Mick - 08-29-2023
(08-28-2023, 03:49 PM)paloalto Wrote: Tonight's vote was postponed due to shooting on North Carolina campus.
A 34 year old grad student shot his academic advisor. They had co-authored research papers, and published one last month. Tragic. Very glad there were no more victims.
https://ncnewsline.com/2023/08/29/victim-identified-suspect-charged-in-fatal-unc-chapel-hill-shooting/
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-29-2023
(08-29-2023, 01:03 PM)paloalto Wrote: Decision is going to be in a holding pattern for several days.
“Commissioner Jim Phillips is going to go to Dallas for the CFP meetings Wednesday,” Thamel said.
After looking at the track of the hurricane, it wouldn't surprise me if the vote was delayed until next week.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Vandelay - 08-29-2023
No meeting. They don't have the votes, anyway. The Recalcitrant Four aren't going to flip.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - old spanish trail - 08-29-2023
(08-29-2023, 08:33 PM)Vandelay Wrote: No meeting. They don't have the votes, anyway. The Recalcitrant Four aren't going to flip.
You could be right, of course, but you know this how???
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - grendalor - 08-29-2023
Sports Illustrated had a brief story on the current status here: https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/washington-state-president-hoping-to-rebuild-pac-12-with-stanford-and-cal-possibly-expand-in-future
No real news on the ACC front, from that update, other than rumors. It's interesting to see the reporting about WSU's president, but that just really serves to underscore how precarious the entire situation actually is, and how uncertain. What an odd place for Stanford to be in.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Vandelay - 08-30-2023
(08-29-2023, 09:47 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(08-29-2023, 08:33 PM)Vandelay Wrote: No meeting. They don't have the votes, anyway. The Recalcitrant Four aren't going to flip.
You could be right, of course, but you know this how???
Those four teams want the ACC to fail so that they can move to the B1G or SEC. They aren't going to change their minds over a few million dollars of incremental revenue.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - chrisk - 08-30-2023
It is interesting that most hard-core football commentators have been say to expect an expansion decision in a week for a month now.
Seems like these commentators have more hope than common sense.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Maple Leaf - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 08:08 AM)Vandelay Wrote:(08-29-2023, 09:47 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(08-29-2023, 08:33 PM)Vandelay Wrote: No meeting. They don't have the votes, anyway. The Recalcitrant Four aren't going to flip.
You could be right, of course, but you know this how???
Those four teams want the ACC to fail so that they can move to the B1G or SEC. They aren't going to change their minds over a few million dollars of incremental revenue.
H#**, tell the four to pack their bags and don't let the door hit them on the way out, discount a tiny bit their respective exit fees to encourage their exit. Add in Stanford, Cal, OSU, WSU, SMU and the New Zealand All Blacks.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 08:08 AM)Vandelay Wrote: Those four teams want the ACC to fail so that they can move to the B1G or SEC. They aren't going to change their minds over a few million dollars of incremental revenue.I think you are correct that there are four schools that want "out" and it appears the only practical way "out" would be the dissolution of the league. Even that would NOT at first brush get rid of the GOR agreement. The empty shell of the ACC would still own them and still be able to collect the money. The hope would be the TV folks wouldn't consider it a "fair" situation. They wouldn't be getting the expected value for the money and something would be negotiated giving those who want to leave a path to do so.
Stanford's best hope is that at least one of those who want out will evaluate the expected value of the extra cash as greater than the expected value of trying to "tank" the ACC itself. The danger to those schools who want to do that is that they will fail, in which case they gave up a lot of cash for no gain. The argument can be made that accepting Stanford, Cal, and SMU does not make the ACC any more likely to stick together, so it would not impede the attempt to "tank" the ACC. Might as well take the money. Let's hope somebody sees it that way.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - 2006alum - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 09:07 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-30-2023, 08:08 AM)Vandelay Wrote: Those four teams want the ACC to fail so that they can move to the B1G or SEC. They aren't going to change their minds over a few million dollars of incremental revenue.I think you are correct that there are four schools that want "out" and it appears the only practical way "out" would be the dissolution of the league. Even that would NOT at first brush get rid of the GOR agreement. The empty shell of the ACC would still own them and still be able to collect the money. The hope would be the TV folks wouldn't consider it a "fair" situation. They wouldn't be getting the expected value for the money and something would be negotiated giving those who want to leave a path to do so.
Stanford's best hope is that at least one of those who want out will evaluate the expected value of the extra cash as greater than the expected value of trying to "tank" the ACC itself. The danger to those schools who want to do that is that they will fail, in which case they gave up a lot of cash for no gain. The argument can be made that accepting Stanford, Cal, and SMU does not make the ACC any more likely to stick together, so it would not impede the attempt to "tank" the ACC. Might as well take the money. Let's hope somebody sees it that way.
I also just don't understand where NC State thinks it could land that's better. Neither the SEC nor B1G would have any interest in it, and even UNC is not a net benefit for those conferences. Per Nate Silver's (now decade old) analysis of TV fans per school, NC State ranks worse than every B1G program and every SEC program save Vandy. Even Florida State and UNC would be middling TV fanbases for those conferences. So while I understand they don't like making less money in the ACC, it's never been clear to me what they think their viable alternative is...
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Giants - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 11:12 AM)2006alum Wrote:(08-30-2023, 09:07 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-30-2023, 08:08 AM)Vandelay Wrote: Those four teams want the ACC to fail so that they can move to the B1G or SEC. They aren't going to change their minds over a few million dollars of incremental revenue.I think you are correct that there are four schools that want "out" and it appears the only practical way "out" would be the dissolution of the league. Even that would NOT at first brush get rid of the GOR agreement. The empty shell of the ACC would still own them and still be able to collect the money. The hope would be the TV folks wouldn't consider it a "fair" situation. They wouldn't be getting the expected value for the money and something would be negotiated giving those who want to leave a path to do so.
Stanford's best hope is that at least one of those who want out will evaluate the expected value of the extra cash as greater than the expected value of trying to "tank" the ACC itself. The danger to those schools who want to do that is that they will fail, in which case they gave up a lot of cash for no gain. The argument can be made that accepting Stanford, Cal, and SMU does not make the ACC any more likely to stick together, so it would not impede the attempt to "tank" the ACC. Might as well take the money. Let's hope somebody sees it that way.
I also just don't understand where NC State thinks it could land that's better. Neither the SEC nor B1G would have any interest in it, and even UNC is not a net benefit for those conferences. Per Nate Silver's (now decade old) analysis of TV fans per school, NC State ranks worse than every B1G program and every SEC program save Vandy. Even Florida State and UNC would be middling TV fanbases for those conferences. So while I understand they don't like making less money in the ACC, it's never been clear to me what they think their viable alternative is...
I suspect that it is a political issue. I think UNC and NC St. are in lockstep for reasons that have nothing to do with TV viewership, etc.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 08:34 AM)chrisk Wrote: It is interesting that most hard-core football commentators have been say to expect an expansion decision in a week for a month now.
Seems like these commentators have more hope than common sense.
ACC presidents meet regularly on Tuesdays. I predict next Tuesday will be a final vote and it will be either do or die. Tuesday will mark the end of it. And then Stanford/Cal goes begging to the Big 12 and says, "We didn't really mean all that trash talk about the Big 12; we would love to be a part of your excellent conference."
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Vandelay - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 11:12 AM)2006alum Wrote: I also just don't understand where NC State thinks it could land that's better. Neither the SEC nor B1G would have any interest in it, and even UNC is not a net benefit for those conferences. Per Nate Silver's (now decade old) analysis of TV fans per school, NC State ranks worse than every B1G program and every SEC program save Vandy. Even Florida State and UNC would be middling TV fanbases for those conferences. So while I understand they don't like making less money in the ACC, it's never been clear to me what they think their viable alternative is...
I agree. NC State is not B1G or SEC material. However, they will leverage their allies in North Carolina state government to prevent UNC from moving to a new conference unless it is a package deal with NC State. I have no idea whether they really have that kind of power or not but that seems to be their thinking. It is similar to when the Big 8 expanded to the Big 12 in the 90's. They didn't really want to take Texas Tech and Baylor but did so to pacify the allies of those schools in Texas state government who were threatening to block the move of Texas and Texas A&M. That's what some might call good ol' southern politics!
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - fullmetal - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 01:12 PM)Giants Wrote: I suspect that it is a political issue. I think UNC and NC St. are in lockstep for reasons that have nothing to do with TV viewership, etc.
U$C/UCLA could learn a thing or two about staying with their in-state sibling institutions.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - 2006alum - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 04:04 PM)fullmetal Wrote:I don't know about U$C (last thing I want to think of Stanford as is U$C's "in-state sibling," but Oregon and Washington could certainly use that lesson, too.(08-30-2023, 01:12 PM)Giants Wrote: I suspect that it is a political issue. I think UNC and NC St. are in lockstep for reasons that have nothing to do with TV viewership, etc.
U$C/UCLA could learn a thing or two about staying with their in-state sibling institutions.
But my point stands: why does UNC think it has the leverage to force a joint UNC-NC State move to either the B1G or the SEC? I simply don't see either conference being that interested in those two, whereas I do think Florida State and Clemson have enough of a fan base -- and football success -- to get an invite.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 04:04 PM)fullmetal Wrote:Who wants to sign up to be U$C's sibling institution :-)?(08-30-2023, 01:12 PM)Giants Wrote: I suspect that it is a political issue. I think UNC and NC St. are in lockstep for reasons that have nothing to do with TV viewership, etc.
U$C/UCLA could learn a thing or two about staying with their in-state sibling institutions.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - fullmetal - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 04:11 PM)Goose Wrote: Who wants to sign up to be U$C's sibling institution :-)?
Pepperdine, maybe. But I mentioned U$C/UCLA since they were the first to bail. Also yes to UO/UW.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Giants - 08-30-2023
(08-30-2023, 04:10 PM)2006alum Wrote:(08-30-2023, 04:04 PM)fullmetal Wrote:I don't know about U$C (last thing I want to think of Stanford as is U$C's "in-state sibling," but Oregon and Washington could certainly use that lesson, too.(08-30-2023, 01:12 PM)Giants Wrote: I suspect that it is a political issue. I think UNC and NC St. are in lockstep for reasons that have nothing to do with TV viewership, etc.
U$C/UCLA could learn a thing or two about staying with their in-state sibling institutions.
But my point stands: why does UNC think it has the leverage to force a joint UNC-NC State move to either the B1G or the SEC? I simply don't see either conference being that interested in those two, whereas I do think Florida State and Clemson have enough of a fan base -- and football success -- to get an invite.
To answer your question, one would would need to understand the politics of the state of North Carolina.
That is outside the scope of my political knowledge.