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? - ADPinWDC - 08-08-2023
(08-07-2023, 10:21 PM)paloalto Wrote:(08-07-2023, 09:44 PM)chrisk Wrote:(08-07-2023, 08:56 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: Unfortunately, too much of the talk here is focused on TRAVEL and regional rivalries. I GET THAT.
The problem: $MONEY is driving realignment, and the digitized landscape. The 20th Century is yesterday.
A) If schlepping to the B1G means taking a HALF-share and snow games, why is that worth it? Screw that.
Do not expect ANY deal to include a full share in the B1G. That's not on the table.
B) I think the Big12 is SET. They got the 4 Corner schools they wanted. Happy Family there. We don't fit. DONE.
C) Apple streaming as an INDY means how much a year? $10M tops. ?? Down from $25M-$30M with former Pac12.
So, how much of Stanford Athletics is GUTTED with that deal?
Heh, INDIE equals more "control" of schedule (that's a fantasy; it's a negotiation, not control) -- put the bottle down.
Yes, the ACC is a "travel nightmare"... but, those are the best School matchups REMAINING. First tier Academics matters.
1) We still get to pick our Non-Conf games
2) Negotiate a "no snow game" clause -- which is not a big burden for ACC; they would want to come West. SYRC = Dome.
3) Very good "New Rivalries": Duke, UVA, VATech (Orange Bowl; great game!), Wake. GATech, yes! UNC = Bowl game.
UNC or Duke would be Boffo in Basketball (Men's & Women's), SOCCER -- that's a National TV tiff. C'mon, Man.
4) Maybe, maybe... the Convicts at Miami and FreeShoesUniv. take plea deals with the SEC. See Ya. Let that play out.
5) Hey -- NDAM becomes a CONF game. Every year, Our Lady. "Have some."
D) Big bonus: I think, despite the physical burden on Student-Athletes, Stanford gets EAST COAST visibility!
NOTE: Stanford is a NATIONAL school. So, play NATIONALLY !!
Some of our marquee Student-Athletes are from the East Coast:
RB Bryce Love (NC), QB Davis Mills (GA), QB Ashton Daniels (GA), LB Chase Thomas -- dozens more.
That's just Football -- now go to Basketball and the Olympic sports.
So, suck it up and head East, young man. The ideal options are GONE.
I have a very hard time seeing the ACC proposal passing the due diligence of the Stanford Trustees.
They will be making the decision anyway, not Muir.
So is Stanford wasting its time talking to the ACC?
YES, as is CAL, I believe. AND, I hear NDAM is involved in helping broker discussions.
That does not mean a deal. It means they are talking.
Though he is retiring next year, the current AD at NDAM (Swarbrick) is a Stanford Law School alum.
He is very capable with broad support. You don't see NDAM in this pickle -- do you?
RE: Mudhead - Mick - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 05:58 AM)Mudhead Wrote: In short, ACC or B1G membership would require agile, able leadership and we don’t have it. Regretfully, I look for inaction to default to a half assed Independent stance while we start to look at the problem. While we dither, I fear our good recruits and players not near graduation will hit the portal. Not talking about just Football and basketball but women’s volleyball and basketball, softball and baseball as well. Absent a bug infusion of endowment funding, the so called Olympic sports go away as well.
I don't think either ACC or B1G membership is in the cards. ACC is too far (legitimately) and B1G is both too far and candidly, they don't really want us...not really. The Big 12 doesn't mesh well, either academically or geographically, and the SEC even less so.
Stanford doesn't have the football cachet that Notre Dame does...it has more cachet in literally every other arena, but not football. The only other independents are Army or two comparative nonentities (UMass and UConn). I think this is the nuclear option for Stanford, and I don't see it happening.
And there's a lot of money at stake to continue the Pac-12 for at least one more year. I think they may be backed into that option. Longer term, the MWC makes more sense. I realize it's not a Power 5, but the remaining Pac-12 teams can lift the ocean, so to speak. They can lift the value of that conference, the competition will be local (better for the student athletes).
(08-08-2023, 05:58 AM)Mudhead Wrote: I think we are well on the way to mediocrity. Fortunately, I have been wrong before.
Too late...
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-08-2023
It’s wishful thinking that the Pac-12 refugees could lift the Mountain West. In the last FOUR YEARS, the only top 25 Sagarin team from this hypothetical merger is 2022 Oregon State. This conference would be as minor as it gets.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Giants - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 10:03 AM)msqueri Wrote: It’s wishful thinking that the Pac-12 refugees could lift the Mountain West. In the last FOUR YEARS, the only top 25 Sagarin team from this hypothetical merger is 2022 Oregon State. This conference would be as minor as it gets.
Yep. Tulane and Oregon State are the only teams in the preseason Coaches Poll that didn’t make the 2024 Power Four cut.
It is either one of those conferences or irrelevancy for the Cardinal.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - gocard14 - 08-08-2023
I tend to believe the travel issue is a bit overblown, at least in comparing the ACC relative to other options like the Big 12
If flying direct just not that big a difference to fly to Raleigh-Durham then Chicago or Texas.
Travel to airport + time before flight + flight to Chicago or Texas is 5.5-6 hours
The same when flying to Raleigh or Boston or Florida is 7.5-8 hours.
Hardly a brobdingnagian difference for a trip taken maybe 5x/year. What can make a bigger difference is actually the proximitiy of said schools to major airports, which is a bigger issue in the Big10 then the ACC. Getting to state college PA or Champaign, Illinois. takes a lot longer then flying to Boston.
Obviously we'd all prefer a real Pac12 with minimal travel or a real invite to a new Big10 with a real western division. But if that isn't in the cards, then being in the ACC isn't that brobdingnagian a change from the Big12 or any other power5 conference.
"Too far" - AlbanyCardinal - 08-08-2023
The reason I don't think the B1G is "too far" -- while I do think the ACC is way too far -- is b/c if Stanford/Cal got an invite to the former, there'd be a 6-team West Coast division for Stanford. That'd make for 5 games within its division, 3 non-conference games, and 4 traditional B1G matchups, or two trips every year to the Midwest or beyond. In the ACC, Stanford would be the only team (other than UCB) this side of the Mississippi (+ 400 miles). To me that's not even fathomable.
(08-08-2023, 07:04 AM)Mick Wrote:(08-08-2023, 05:58 AM)Mudhead Wrote: In short, ACC or B1G membership would require agile, able leadership and we don’t have it. Regretfully, I look for inaction to default to a half assed Independent stance while we start to look at the problem. While we dither, I fear our good recruits and players not near graduation will hit the portal. Not talking about just Football and basketball but women’s volleyball and basketball, softball and baseball as well. Absent a bug infusion of endowment funding, the so called Olympic sports go away as well.
I don't think either ACC or B1G membership is in the cards. ACC is too far (legitimately) and B1G is both too far and candidly, they don't really want us...not really. The Big 12 doesn't mesh well, either academically or geographically, and the SEC even less so.
Stanford doesn't have the football cachet that Notre Dame does...it has more cachet in literally every other arena, but not football. The only other independents are Army or two comparative nonentities (UMass and UConn). I think this is the nuclear option for Stanford, and I don't see it happening.
And there's a lot of money at stake to continue the Pac-12 for at least one more year. I think they may be backed into that option. Longer term, the MWC makes more sense. I realize it's not a Power 5, but the remaining Pac-12 teams can lift the ocean, so to speak. They can lift the value of that conference, the competition will be local (better for the student athletes).
(08-08-2023, 05:58 AM)Mudhead Wrote: I think we are well on the way to mediocrity. Fortunately, I have been wrong before.
Too late...
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - ColoradoTree - 08-08-2023
I mean, yeah, I'd way prefer the Big Ten, too. More money, legit Western division, keep some traditional rivalries. It would clearly be a better option than the ACC--if it were an option. It seems like it's not.
So, I'm assuming these are the actual options: (1) Join the Mountain West, either under the Pac-whatever banner or a new name or under the MW name, but either way it's the Pac-4 plus much or all of the existing MW; (2) go independent in football and join the Big West/WCC in Olympic sports; or (3) join the ACC in the most geographically absurd bit of conference realignment yet.
In that case, I am sprinting through Door #3.
And it need not be forever, and it won't be. The inevitable march toward football consolidation continues. At a certain point, Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State will come to resent subsidizing Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers, Purdue et al. and they'll break away (in football, at least) as part of whatever pseudo-Champions League format that will exist for the highest level of college football. You'll see the existing conferences cleave at that point, as Alabama, LSU, Georgia, and Florida will be only too happy to take a bigger chunk of money in exchange for bidding adieu to a conference relationship with Kentucky, Vanderbilt, or Missouri. And yeah, that's when the ACC will die, too, as at least FSU, Clemson, and Miami will join the big kids' table and we'll have a separate governing body that deals with Super League College Football or whatever they call it. Stanford won't be in that mix, and frankly, neither will most of the current Power 5 teams. And that's OK. Maybe that final cleavage doesn't happen, and they get there instead by unequal revenue distributions to prop up the existing conferences, but it amounts to the same thing.
We've all got a point where we'll reach our limit and want to step off the ride. I'm not there yet. I take a lot of pride in Stanford's overall athletic success, even though most of it happens in less visible sports. I'm proud of the number of Olympians and NCAA championships we can boast. I'm proud in our commitment to excellence. As college football continues down its current path toward discarding tradition in chasing media dollars, I hope that we can preserve that excellence in other sports. Yeah, it's fun when Stanford football does well, but its primary benefit to me personally is helping fund the rest of the athletic department budget to support the other teams. And for that to happen, we need to be in a major conference. And the only one that seems to be seriously considering us right now is the ACC. So I want to be at that table. For now.
Eventually, when college football breaks off and does its own thing, maybe we can return to normalcy and we'll see more natural geographic realignment. Football will do its own thing, while we return to 8-12 team regional conferences of yesteryear for other sports. But for the time being, I don't want to see our athletic department wither on the vine.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - AlbanyCardinal - 08-08-2023
I get it and concede that it could be the way to go. From where I sit, though, I'd rather Stanford bide its time till the right door opens, assuming it ever does, by going independent or reforming some iteration of the Pac. To me, joining the ACC at this point, while everything seems up in the air, and knowing that it'd be a binding agreement for the next 10+ years, feels ill-advised, panicky, and rushed.
(08-08-2023, 01:49 PM)ColoradoTree Wrote: I mean, yeah, I'd way prefer the Big Ten, too. More money, legit Western division, keep some traditional rivalries. It would clearly be a better option than the ACC--if it were an option. It seems like it's not.
So, I'm assuming these are the actual options: (1) Join the Mountain West, either under the Pac-whatever banner or a new name or under the MW name, but either way it's the Pac-4 plus much or all of the existing MW; (2) go independent in football and join the Big West/WCC in Olympic sports; or (3) join the ACC in the most geographically absurd bit of conference realignment yet.
In that case, I am sprinting through Door #3.
And it need not be forever, and it won't be. The inevitable march toward football consolidation continues. At a certain point, Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State will come to resent subsidizing Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers, Purdue et al. and they'll break away (in football, at least) as part of whatever pseudo-Champions League format that will exist for the highest level of college football. You'll see the existing conferences cleave at that point, as Alabama, LSU, Georgia, and Florida will be only too happy to take a bigger chunk of money in exchange for bidding adieu to a conference relationship with Kentucky, Vanderbilt, or Missouri. And yeah, that's when the ACC will die, too, as at least FSU, Clemson, and Miami will join the big kids' table and we'll have a separate governing body that deals with Super League College Football or whatever they call it. Stanford won't be in that mix, and frankly, neither will most of the current Power 5 teams. And that's OK. Maybe that final cleavage doesn't happen, and they get there instead by unequal revenue distributions to prop up the existing conferences, but it amounts to the same thing.
We've all got a point where we'll reach our limit and want to step off the ride. I'm not there yet. I take a lot of pride in Stanford's overall athletic success, even though most of it happens in less visible sports. I'm proud of the number of Olympians and NCAA championships we can boast. I'm proud in our commitment to excellence. As college football continues down its current path toward discarding tradition in chasing media dollars, I hope that we can preserve that excellence in other sports. Yeah, it's fun when Stanford football does well, but its primary benefit to me personally is helping fund the rest of the athletic department budget to support the other teams. And for that to happen, we need to be in a major conference. And the only one that seems to be seriously considering us right now is the ACC. So I want to be at that table. For now.
Eventually, when college football breaks off and does its own thing, maybe we can return to normalcy and we'll see more natural geographic realignment. Football will do its own thing, while we return to 8-12 team regional conferences of yesteryear for other sports. But for the time being, I don't want to see our athletic department wither on the vine.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - chrisk - 08-08-2023
The ACC Grant of Rights extending to 2036 seems like a major hurdle, yet it is the main thing holding the current ACC together.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 01:56 PM)AlbanyCardinal Wrote: To me, joining the ACC at this point, while everything seems up in the air, and knowing that it'd be a binding agreement for the next 10+ years, feels ill-advised, panicky, and rushed.The ACC Grant of Rights is IMO an insurmountable hurdle to Stanford joining the ACC. It would bind us to the conference until 2035 as I understand it. If college football figures out a more "acceptable" organization before then, Stanford can't just leave and embrace the "new" model. Worse still IMO the ACC itself could vote to do things Stanford deeply opposes, but we would still be "stuck" there. We can't even credibly threaten to leave.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - gocard14 - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 02:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-08-2023, 01:56 PM)AlbanyCardinal Wrote: To me, joining the ACC at this point, while everything seems up in the air, and knowing that it'd be a binding agreement for the next 10+ years, feels ill-advised, panicky, and rushed.The ACC Grant of Rights is IMO an insurmountable hurdle to Stanford joining the ACC. It would bind us to the conference until 2035 as I understand it. If college football figures out a more "acceptable" organization before then, Stanford can't just leave and embrace the "new" model. Worse still IMO the ACC itself could vote to do things Stanford deeply opposes, but we would still be "stuck" there. We can't even credibly threaten to leave.
I wouldn't call it an insurmountable hurdle. It just means joining the ACC is a one way trip for at least a decade. All or nothing, no dating the ACC while waiting until the Big10 is single. Which is the right move if no Big10 opening is forthcoming. Ideally we are using the ACC as leverage for a spot in the Big10. But if that spot doesn't appear, we should proceed with the ACC.
What it does is ensure that Stanford plays football at the big kids table for at least the next decade. While the ACC payout isn't Big10 level, it puts us at least in the same stratosphere, which being independent or joining the MWC would not.
I for one believe we are reaching peak rights fees for college sports. Networks are getting smarter about getting into bidding wars, national interest will gradually wane given the professionalization of college athletics and the destruction of local rivalries and traditions. In my view, the only reasons the Alabama's and Ohio State's of the world have agreed to equal revenue splits are conference traditions and the fact that the pie has been growing exponentially. Once the pie stops growing, the SEC and Big10 are going to start carving themselves up to get a bigger piece. I believe that eventually those conferences either split apart to form a smaller nationwide "super league" with only blue bloods invited, or the conferences agree to radically unequal revenue splits.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 03:06 PM)gocard14 Wrote:Unfortunately, IMO it ensures nothing. The ACC itself has a myriad of problems, any one of which could lead to implosion. Of the 4 remaining "P-5" conferences, it is the only one with members who are actively seeking an exit. That alone isn't good. Further, what the ACC may chose to do during those 10+ years may not fit well with Stanford at all. There is certainly a culture gap at present. Of course, it could work out fine and all would be well. However, that isn't probable IMHO, and the lack of a reasonable exit mechanism is a very big risk. If Stanford had functioned like ND and been part of the ACC for some time, the potential issues could be evaluated and de-risked. Continuing the analogy, we are being asked to marry somebody we haven't even dated and don't really know. On top of that, there is a prenuptial agreement that says we lose everything and get nothing if there is a divorce before 2035. Doesn't sound great to me.(08-08-2023, 02:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-08-2023, 01:56 PM)AlbanyCardinal Wrote: To me, joining the ACC at this point, while everything seems up in the air, and knowing that it'd be a binding agreement for the next 10+ years, feels ill-advised, panicky, and rushed.The ACC Grant of Rights is IMO an insurmountable hurdle to Stanford joining the ACC. It would bind us to the conference until 2035 as I understand it. If college football figures out a more "acceptable" organization before then, Stanford can't just leave and embrace the "new" model. Worse still IMO the ACC itself could vote to do things Stanford deeply opposes, but we would still be "stuck" there. We can't even credibly threaten to leave.
I wouldn't call it an insurmountable hurdle. It just means joining the ACC is a one way trip for at least a decade. All or nothing, no dating the ACC while waiting until the Big10 is single. Which is the right move if no Big10 opening is forthcoming. Ideally we are using the ACC as leverage for a spot in the Big10. But if that spot doesn't appear, we should proceed with the ACC.
What it does is ensure that Stanford plays football at the big kids table for at least the next decade. While the ACC payout isn't Big10 level, it puts us at least in the same stratosphere, which being independent or joining the MWC would not.
Quote:I for one believe we are reaching peak rights fees for college sports. Networks are getting smarter about getting into bidding wars, national interest will gradually wane given the professionalization of college athletics and the destruction of local rivalries and traditions. In my view, the only reasons the Alabama's and Ohio State's of the world have agreed to equal revenue splits are conference traditions and the fact that the pie has been growing exponentially. Once the pie stops growing, the SEC and Big10 are going to start carving themselves up to get a bigger piece. I believe that eventually those conferences either split apart to form a smaller nationwide "super league" with only blue bloods invited, or the conferences agree to radically unequal revenue splits.I think you are quite correct.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - jacket3ree - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 02:02 PM)chrisk Wrote: The ACC Grant of Rights extending to 2036 seems like a major hurdle, yet it is the main only thing holding the current ACC together.
Slight edit.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-08-2023
Outstanding post, ColoradoTree.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - fullmetal - 08-08-2023
I don't see the big conferences breaking up. The conference weaklings pad the W/L record, which ultimately affect the rankings, which play a large part in the playoff selection process. The overratedness of those bottom dwellers inflates the rankings of the conference heavyweights, and that's just how the winners keep winning. In the Pac-12, we saw relative conference parity where conference losses resulted in a near-death sentence for playoff hopes.
The bottom dwellers of the B1G/$EC need to be relegated.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - ADPinWDC - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 03:42 PM)msqueri Wrote: Outstanding post, ColoradoTree.
AGREE... "Flee through Door #3... the ACC."
Lots of folks are continuing to labor under bad misperceptions that DO NOT EXIST.
I half believe that Studio Heads at ESPN / FOX / CBS saw fit to hatch "Operation Devil Takes Hindmost" to kill Pac12.
The primary goal is simply to reduce the Power 5 to just FOUR Confs and drive the 16-team Football Playoff format ultimately sought.
The Soul-less Studio Heads care not for Regional Rivalries, nor tradition, nor really for travel costs to Olympic sports with few viewers.
And Larry Scott (no DirectTV; bad Pac12Network deal) and then Kliavkoff arrogantly played right into the scheme. #FATAL.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - gocard14 - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 04:44 PM)fullmetal Wrote: I don't see the big conferences breaking up. The conference weaklings pad the W/L record, which ultimately affect the rankings, which play a large part in the playoff selection process. The overratedness of those bottom dwellers inflates the rankings of the conference heavyweights, and that's just how the winners keep winning. In the Pac-12, we saw relative conference parity where conference losses resulted in a near-death sentence for playoff hopes.
The bottom dwellers of the B1G/$EC need to be relegated.
If the blue bloods split off and make a super league, that super league will take control of the playoff. This will already happen to a degree with the Big10 and SEC once negotiations reopen. They will get to make the rules because any playoff that doesn't involve either the current Big10/SEC or future superleagues would be a joke.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - dabigv13 - 08-08-2023
I think an ACC invite is as likely as a Big 10 invite at this point, meaning not very. With Big 10, we heard they discussed us with UW and UO but didn't pick us obviously. All we've heard so far regarding ACC is that there have been preliminary discussions, just as far as we got with B10. And just like B10, the next round of reports is sourced to media insiders talking about how Stanford isn't really additive. I'm guessing we'll read soon that ACC isn't really interested either.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-08-2023
Latest rumor making the rounds. ACC also in discussion with SMU:
https://theathletic.com/4759961/2023/08/08/acc-smu-expansion-option-discussions/
Thanks to deep-pocketed donors, SMU is building a $100 million end zone facility and is in some cases lapping Group of 5 competitors in the NIL market. The idea that SMU could withstand years as a lesser-share member of a power conference, with boosters filling in the gap, has also come up in realignment discussions.
If ACC could find the media revenue to also add SDSU, the travel issue would almost make a little bit of sense.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - chrisk - 08-08-2023
(08-08-2023, 06:53 PM)paloalto Wrote: Latest rumor making the rounds. ACC also in discussion with SMU:
https://theathletic.com/4759961/2023/08/08/acc-smu-expansion-option-discussions/
Thanks to deep-pocketed donors, SMU is building a $100 million end zone facility and is in some cases lapping Group of 5 competitors in the NIL market. The idea that SMU could withstand years as a lesser-share member of a power conference, with boosters filling in the gap, has also come up in realignment discussions.
If ACC could find the media revenue to also add SDSU, the travel issue would almost make a little bit of sense.
If the pac-4 adds SDSU, SMU, and a few similar schools the net results (considering travel) woul be about as good as joining the ACC. Who is excited about a steady diet of Boston College, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Virginia Tech, and NC State?