The CardBoard
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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Canalejas - 08-09-2023

A Pac-4 and AAC merger revives the possibility for a fun conference name (that I'm totally stealing from some reddit thread.)  

The Pax Americana Conference.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - SkiBum80 - 08-09-2023

(08-09-2023, 07:24 PM)2006alum Wrote:  Not so fast, says the ACC:

Sources: Cal, Stanford to ACC hits 'significant roadblocks'

Those roadblocks presumably include the fact that Stanford and Cal are about as far from the "Atlantic" as one can get within the contiguous United States...

Bad news for the Cardinal

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - gocard14 - 08-09-2023

(08-09-2023, 08:31 PM)burger Wrote:  Well, if the ACC won't take us, the AAC would be more than happy: https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/smu-mustangs/2023/08/09/aac-a-target-for-expansion-poachers-could-join-conference-realignment-race/

It looks like their media deal pays about twice what the MWC does--8 million vs 4+ million.

MWC pays 4+ now. I expect if the MWC merged with the PAC 4 under the PAC name, it would be closer to 10-12 and a heck of a lot closer to home.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Sunnysideup - 08-09-2023

I don't intend to downplay the significance of travel woes, or time zone changes, but I think there are some misconceptions about non-football (presumably football would be chartered) travel to ACC competitors.

Long-time reader/lurker, first-time poster (spurred by this discussion). Grew up in a Stanford/Duke household (parents' alma maters) and now married to a Big 10 alum. Have been to many of these campuses in all 3 conferences over the years. Anecdotally my sense is that ACC travel would be LESS expensive, stressful, and time-consuming for players, families, and fans, particularly the distance from airports to these schools for the most part.

The Big 10 is getting rid of divisions, effective 2024, so there's no assumption Stanford would play the "Western" division. Yes, one would assume the West Coast Big 10 schools would be likely competitors, but just playing this out for fun to test my theory...


Maybe it's a wash in the end, but I wouldn't agree that Big 10 travel would be "better" for non-football athletes or fans. In fact, I'd argue it's easier/faster to get from Stanford to Duke, UNC, NC State, Boston College, Miami, Pitt, or Georgia Tech than it is to get from Stanford to Iowa, Nebraska, Purdue, or the University of Illinois (some of the current "Western" division of the Big 10).

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - chrisk - 08-09-2023

(08-09-2023, 09:24 PM)Sunnysideup Wrote:  I don't intend to downplay the significance of travel woes, or time zone changes, but I think there are some misconceptions about non-football (presumably football would be chartered) travel to ACC competitors.

Long-time reader/lurker, first-time poster (spurred by this discussion). Grew up in a Stanford/Duke household (parents' alma maters) and now married to a Big 10 alum. Have been to many of these campuses in all 3 conferences over the years. Anecdotally my sense is that ACC travel would be LESS expensive, stressful, and time-consuming for players, families, and fans, particularly the distance from airports to these schools for the most part.

The Big 10 is getting rid of divisions, effective 2024, so there's no assumption Stanford would play the "Western" division. Yes, one would assume the West Coast Big 10 schools would be likely competitors, but just playing this out for fun to test my theory...

  • Palo Alto to Duke (Durham), UNC (Chapel Hill), or NC State (Raleigh) is a direct, non-stop flight (SFO-RDU) for 5 hours, plus ~20 minutes of travel time from the airport (RDU) to one of these campuses, which are each close to the airport. Wake Forest is 1.5 hours (bus time) from RDU, too.
  • To Miami - non-stop from SFO - 5 hrs, 41 minutes (direct)
  • To Boston College - non-stop from SFO to Boston - 5 hrs, 31 minutes (direct)

  • To Georgia Tech - non-stop from SFO to Atlanta - 4 hrs, 40 minutes (direct)

  • To UVA - ~7 hours (with connection) to CHO (airport in Charlottesville).

  • To Pitt - non-stop from SFO to Pittsburgh - ~5 hours (direct).

  • To Syracuse - ~7 hours (with connection) to SYR.

  • To Virginia Tech - ~7 hours (with connection) to Roanoke, plus 40 minute bus ride to Blacksburg.

  • To Clemson - 30 minutes from Greenville (~6-7 hours with connection to GSP).

  • To Louisville - ~6-7 hours (with connection) to Louisville airport (SDF).

  • To FSU - ~6-7 hours (with connection) to Tallahassee airport.
  • To Penn State requires a connection (through PHL or ORD to SCE) - fastest, with connection times, from SFO is 7+ hours for flying time alone. Delta doesn't even serve Penn State's airport (State College) anymore; flight options are limited for fans, not to mention players/teams. It's a 3 hour, 30 minute DRIVE from PHL, if you try to take out the connection (non-stop SFO-PHL is 5 hours, 30 minutes), assuming you don't hit traffic.

  • The fastest way from Palo Alto to Indiana is likely flying to Indianapolis, which is about 1 hour away by bus/car. There is ONE SFO-IND flight a day, it is a red-eye that leaves at nearly 11 PM from SFO, and it's 4 hours, 45 minutes long. Otherwise you're talking connections and ~6-7 hrs of flying time, just to get to IND.

  • To Univ. of Iowa, you're talking about flying to Eastern Iowa Airport (~6-7 hours of flying time with a connection, plus 20 minutes to campus, limited flight options); Quad Cities, which is an HOUR away by bus from campus (7 hours flying time, with connection); or Des Moines (2.5 hours by bus to University), with ~5.5 hours of flying time with a connection.

  • To Urbana-Champaign, you can fly to Champaign's airport with a connection if you get the tiny plane from Dallas or Chicago (~7 hours of flying time) on American. Otherwise it's 2+ hours of bus travel from the Chicago, St. Louis, or Indianapolis airports.

  • To Lincoln (Nebraska), it's ~5-6 hours of flying time, with a connection.

  • Purdue is 1 hour bus ride from IND, so see the above IND conversation (~6-7 hours with connection if you don't take the one red eye from SFO).

  • Ohio State - Columbus has 1 morning non-stop a day from SFO (4.5 hours). Otherwise, it's ~6-7 hours with connection.

  • Michigan State - 1.5 hour bus ride from Detroit (4.5 hour non-stop) or ~6-7 hour flight time with connection to Lansing.

  • Michigan (~30 minutes from DTW - 4.5 hr non-stop), Minnesota (3.5-4 hr non-stop to MSP), Northwestern (~30 minutes without traffic from ORD - 4.5 hr non-stop), Rutgers (~30 minutes from Newark - 5.5 hrs non-stop), Maryland (any of the DC airports, ~5 hours non-stop) do have direct flights.

Maybe it's a wash in the end, but I wouldn't agree that Big 10 travel would be "better" for non-football athletes or fans. In fact, I'd argue it's easier/faster to get from Stanford to Duke, UNC, NC State, Boston College, Miami, Pitt, or Georgia Tech than it is to get from Stanford to Iowa, Nebraska, Purdue, or the University of Illinois (some of the current "Western" division of the Big 10).

A good argument for letting UW and UO being the guinea pigs and see how it works out for them.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - gocard14 - 08-09-2023

Good article on the latest. It sounds like it hangs on a knife's edge. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

We need 12/15 votes. Reportedly there are 10 yea's, and 4-5 nay or undecideds. Per some forum posters claiming sources, (so large grains of salt)  FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA are currently Nos, with everyone else firm or leaning yes.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - StanfordMatt - 08-09-2023

The ACC sounds like a couple with a troubled marriage with one spouse pushing to have a baby in hopes that it’ll save the marriage while the other has a wandering eye and one foot out the door.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Softball Fan - 08-09-2023

If you are in favor of joining the ACC, it might be a little encouraging they decided not to vote.  If they voted the expansion would fail and that would be the end of it.  It's possible the four schools against the expansion see an opportunity to leverage as much as they can get out of it to agree for expansion.  Or they could be dead set against it because there isn't any revenue increase for them.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Jamesy - 08-10-2023

(08-09-2023, 10:15 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  Good article on the latest. It sounds like it hangs on a knife's edge. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

We need 12/15 votes. Reportedly there are 10 yea's, and 4-5 nay or undecideds. Per some forum posters claiming sources, (so large grains of salt)  FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA are currently Nos, with everyone else firm or leaning yes.

I can understand FSU and Clemson being opposed but why UVA and UNC? Do they see us competing for the same athletes given their strong academics?

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - PersonalLegend - 08-10-2023

A bi coastal league is an awful idea in every way except the purse. 

Imagine being a minor sport athlete that has to compete in smaller eastern markets.  You are talking about a full day (talking 6am to 7pm) of travel heading east, and perhaps a connecting flight to a late arriving flight heading west.  

Even the football team usually takes an extra day for east coast games, and that’s on a charter. 

It all looks easy and doable on paper but is soul sucking…and I have spent large parts of my professional life on planes coast to coast.  Add to that the horrid state of air travel and the ACC option just sucks.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Hieronymus - 08-10-2023

(08-10-2023, 01:01 AM)Jamesy Wrote:  
(08-09-2023, 10:15 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  Good article on the latest. It sounds like it hangs on a knife's edge. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/acc-expansion-on-life-support-with-presidents-delaying-vote-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-020106388.html

We need 12/15 votes. Reportedly there are 10 yea's, and 4-5 nay or undecideds. Per some forum posters claiming sources, (so large grains of salt)  FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA are currently Nos, with everyone else firm or leaning yes.

I can understand FSU and Clemson being opposed but why UVA and UNC? Do they see us competing for the same athletes given their strong academics?

It is intersetiing that 2 of the No’s are schools who are likely to flee. Shades of USC’s sabotage of the PAC.  But UNC and UVA are harder to figure for me.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Canalejas - 08-10-2023

I’ve read that UVA and UNC are likely to receive interest from the B1G and/or the SEC. So I guess all four are trying to flee.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Jskass - 08-10-2023

I thought I read somewhere about an August 15th deadline for those wishing to leave the ACC so wonder if maybe best to delay vote until after that date in hopes that if a school such as FSU notifies, they then don't vote - which helps us as need 3/4 of a smaller base?

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - GK3 - 08-10-2023

(08-09-2023, 08:31 PM)burger Wrote:  Well, if the ACC won't take us, the AAC would be more than happy: https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/smu-mustangs/2023/08/09/aac-a-target-for-expansion-poachers-could-join-conference-realignment-race/

It looks like their media deal pays about twice what the MWC does--8 million vs 4+ million.
Based on everything I can find as of a few hours ago, the ACC is out, the NO schools are not interested.  Maybe someone can come up with enough money for one of them to say Yes, but it looks doubtful.  All that is left seem to be very bad choices, maybe not so much for other sports.  I assume Taylor will stick around for at least one season, but if he really wants to coach at a Power 5 School and he does better than expected his first year, my guess is that he will be a hot prospect in 2024 if we are still stuck in a non power 5 conference.  
We can blame no one but ourselves and the brobdingnagian lack of leadership and common sense exhibited by the President, Provost and BoT.  I regard Bernie has having no real role in this mess as I don't believe he had any significant decision making authority.  It was a more, "Bernie sit at your desk and we will tell you when to talk" type deal.
If Condi becomes the next President, then maybe we have a chance to get out of the mess we got ourselves into.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-10-2023

The downside of that is without the ballast provided by Florida State the ACC becomes next on the menu for super conference poaching, so we’d be contemplating joining a dying conference.

Some argue that the most lucrative ACC programs oppose our joining precisely because we help stabilize the conference and they’d rather get on with SEC/Big 10 consolidation.

(Post in response to Jskass in case post in the interim made that unclear)

Mudhead - Mudhead - 08-10-2023

(08-10-2023, 06:07 AM)GK3 Wrote:  
(08-09-2023, 08:31 PM)burger Wrote:  Well, if the ACC won't take us, the AAC would be more than happy: https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/smu-mustangs/2023/08/09/aac-a-target-for-expansion-poachers-could-join-conference-realignment-race/

It looks like their media deal pays about twice what the MWC does--8 million vs 4+ million.
Based on everything I can find as of a few hours ago, the ACC is out, the NO schools are not interested.  Maybe someone can come up with enough money for one of them to say Yes, but it looks doubtful.  All that is left seem to be very bad choices, maybe not so much for other sports.  I assume Taylor will stick around for at least one season, but if he really wants to coach at a Power 5 School and he does better than expected his first year, my guess is that he will be a hot prospect in 2024 if we are still stuck in a non power 5 conference.  
We can blame no one but ourselves and the of immense proportions lack of leadership and common sense exhibited by the President, Provost and BoT.  I regard Bernie has having no real role in this mess as I don't believe he had any significant decision making authority.  It was a more, "Bernie sit at your desk and we will tell you when to talk" type deal.
If Condi becomes the next President, then maybe we have a chance to get out of the mess we got ourselves into.
Spot on.  The way forward will be very difficult.  We can’t find it without new leadership . Condi has all the tools and experience to lead….not just for athletics which is the tail and not the dog. I hope the BOT can wake up and step up rather than let Stanford conti ie to drift.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-10-2023

(08-10-2023, 06:07 AM)GK3 Wrote:  
(08-09-2023, 08:31 PM)burger Wrote:  Well, if the ACC won't take us, the AAC would be more than happy: https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/smu-mustangs/2023/08/09/aac-a-target-for-expansion-poachers-could-join-conference-realignment-race/

It looks like their media deal pays about twice what the MWC does--8 million vs 4+ million.
Based on everything I can find as of a few hours ago, the ACC is out, the NO schools are not interested.  Maybe someone can come up with enough money for one of them to say Yes, but it looks doubtful.  All that is left seem to be very bad choices, maybe not so much for other sports.  I assume Taylor will stick around for at least one season, but if he really wants to coach at a Power 5 School and he does better than expected his first year, my guess is that he will be a hot prospect in 2024 if we are still stuck in a non power 5 conference.  
We can blame no one but ourselves and the of immense proportions lack of leadership and common sense exhibited by the President, Provost and BoT.  I regard Bernie has having no real role in this mess as I don't believe he had any significant decision making authority.  It was a more, "Bernie sit at your desk and we will tell you when to talk" type deal.
If Condi becomes the next President, then maybe we have a chance to get out of the mess we got ourselves into.

I wouldn’t worry about Taylor leaving within the next couple of years. Hiring an FCS coach to Power Five is a big reach almost no programs would do. Taylor would really have to knock it out of the park to have his resume read as proven Power Five coach rather than FCS guy who is TBD in the big leagues. The jobs we’d be talking about are most likely Texas A&M, West Virginia, Northwestern, Indiana, and Syracuse. While a Taylor doesn’t have nearly the juice to replace Jimbo Fisher, the rest of the list is somewhat plausible for Taylor to shop around if he wants to but there’s a geographic problem and it’s hard to imagine Taylor high on any of these lists. If for some reason teams look to the Pac-12 zombie programs, Jonathan Smith is far more proven than Taylor and Jake Dickert may be. If for some reason teams are willing to roll the dice on somebody who has been coaching major college football for a year, our former Lance Taylor is more of a geographic fit for these Big 10 programs. This is all probably moot because typically Power Five programs hire bigger name current/former established head coaches. If you consider the Northwestern option, for instance, candidate lists have consistently included guys like Matt Campbell, Willie Fritz, Mike Elko, and Dave Clawson, as well as Mike Kafka (obviously a uniquely interesting fit there). 

I could see stewarding a dying program not be what Taylor signed up for, but he’d have to be pretty darn good/lucky to ever get an opportunity like Stanford gave him. My guess is it would take several years.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - pcgoode - 08-10-2023

I don’t think we are getting into any remaining Power 5 conference unless Notre Dame says they will join on the condition that Stanford gets in as well, or we do so based on a massive haircut on revenues.

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - SkiBum80 - 08-10-2023

(08-10-2023, 06:07 AM)GK3 Wrote:  
(08-09-2023, 08:31 PM)burger Wrote:  Well, if the ACC won't take us, the AAC would be more than happy: https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/smu-mustangs/2023/08/09/aac-a-target-for-expansion-poachers-could-join-conference-realignment-race/

It looks like their media deal pays about twice what the MWC does--8 million vs 4+ million.
Based on everything I can find as of a few hours ago, the ACC is out, the NO schools are not interested.  Maybe someone can come up with enough money for one of them to say Yes, but it looks doubtful.  All that is left seem to be very bad choices, maybe not so much for other sports.  I assume Taylor will stick around for at least one season, but if he really wants to coach at a Power 5 School and he does better than expected his first year, my guess is that he will be a hot prospect in 2024 if we are still stuck in a non power 5 conference.  
We can blame no one but ourselves and the of immense proportions lack of leadership and common sense exhibited by the President, Provost and BoT.  I regard Bernie has having no real role in this mess as I don't believe he had any significant decision making authority.  It was a more, "Bernie sit at your desk and we will tell you when to talk" type deal.
If Condi becomes the next President, then maybe we have a chance to get out of the mess we got ourselves into.

If Coach TT does well at SU, and if we don't end up in a Power conference, then for him to consider moving from head coach at irrelevant and invisible SU to a top assistant at a Power school, like an Offensive or Defensive coordinator, would be a step up. Not to mention such possibilities in the NFL. I think it is underappreciated the blow to our football team coaching and players if we end up diddling around attempting to go Independent, which could easily lead to holes in a 2024 schedule, or play lesser schools with small if any media space cause they happen to be geographically convenient. Of course he might not do well, then we'd have a crappy team in a crappy or no conference getting no revenue, but hey nobody has to travel!

RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Goose - 08-10-2023

(08-10-2023, 06:08 AM)msqueri Wrote:  The downside of that is without the ballast provided by Florida State the ACC becomes next on the menu for super conference poaching, so we’d be contemplating joining a dying conference.

Some argue that the most lucrative ACC programs oppose our joining precisely because we help stabilize the conference and they’d rather get on with SEC/Big 10 consolidation.

(Post in response to Jskass in case post in the interim made that unclear)
As I understand it, UVA and UNC see themselves as the "leaders" of the ACC. UNC certainly has that reputation. Adding Stanford and Cal might be viewed as adding competition for the "elder statesmen" roles. IMO there are plenty of "good" reasons to oppose adding two teams from the opposite coast. However, given the decision making process in college football these days, I doubt anybody in the ACC is really looking at those reasons. From a "what's in it for me" point of view, if the deal brings no additional money to each school, it is unclear what the advantages are to the ACC. IMO there is no way one could argue it makes the conference "stronger", as they are taking "leftovers" from the PAC-12. Given the travel issues, why do it? If FSU and Clemson do intend to leave, it would make sense iff the money stayed the same (or increased) for all remaining schools. Of course, what ND thinks may count a bit.