[ColoradoTree]

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

Now, there's the gigantic flaw of us being located on the Pacific coast rather than the Atlantic, and the student-athlete impacts that will follow, but for many of those sports, the problems are at least theoretically fixable through more creative regional scheduling, long road trips (I'm thinking for Olympic sports, using prescheduled school breaks as a chance to go play at two schools one weekend, practice the next week at a home base, and play two other schools the following weekend), perhaps reduced conference schedules for other sports.

And there's a lot to like. Relative to our Big West/WCC/MWC/Big 12 options, we get a comfortable academic fit in the ACC, we preserve the Notre Dame rivalry as a pseudo-conference game, and we get a high level of competition for our various Olympic programs. (On my end, I'm thinking of women's tennis going from a just-OK conference in the Pac-12 with USC/UCLA still in it, to a barren wasteland without them, to the nation's best women's tennis conference.) And yes, we continue to survive as an athletic entity much the same way we do now.

[ColoradoTree]

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

Now, there's the gigantic flaw of us being located on the Pacific coast rather than the Atlantic, and the student-athlete impacts that will follow, but for many of those sports, the problems are at least theoretically fixable through more creative regional scheduling, long road trips (I'm thinking for Olympic sports, using prescheduled school breaks as a chance to go play at two schools one weekend, practice the next week at a home base, and play two other schools the following weekend), perhaps reduced conference schedules for other sports.

And there's a lot to like. Relative to our Big West/WCC/MWC/Big 12 options, we get a comfortable academic fit in the ACC, we preserve the Notre Dame rivalry as a pseudo-conference game, and we get a high level of competition for our various Olympic programs. (On my end, I'm thinking of women's tennis going from a just-OK conference in the Pac-12 with USC/UCLA still in it, to a barren wasteland without them, to the nation's best women's tennis conference.) And yes, we continue to survive as an athletic entity much the same way we do now.

[2006alum]

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

Not going to lie, I'm more excited to hear from you than that we might be ACC-bound! Glad you're back, and our board really missed your insights this past Women's Tennis season!

As for the ACC rumors, does anyone know if the ACC can add schools w/o mucking up their "ironclad" Grant of Rights? My impression was that they'd need a vote of University heads at a minimum, and it seems like the schools who want a larger share (FSU, Clemson) would be opposed to splitting the pie even more ways. 

Alternatively, maybe the ACC is preparing for the FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA SECXIT, and are looking at some of the Pac-4 to replace them?

My head is spinning...

[2006alum]

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

Not going to lie, I'm more excited to hear from you than that we might be ACC-bound! Glad you're back, and our board really missed your insights this past Women's Tennis season!

As for the ACC rumors, does anyone know if the ACC can add schools w/o mucking up their "ironclad" Grant of Rights? My impression was that they'd need a vote of University heads at a minimum, and it seems like the schools who want a larger share (FSU, Clemson) would be opposed to splitting the pie even more ways. 

Alternatively, maybe the ACC is preparing for the FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA SECXIT, and are looking at some of the Pac-4 to replace them?

My head is spinning...

[bbm233]

Here's a rumor: Stanford and Notre Dame have always been thought to be a B1G package, but it's actually the ACC that gets to open that present. Notre Dame is already essentially an ACC member in all sports except football. Makes sense.

[bbm233]

Here's a rumor: Stanford and Notre Dame have always been thought to be a B1G package, but it's actually the ACC that gets to open that present. Notre Dame is already essentially an ACC member in all sports except football. Makes sense.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Ick. Without knowing what the ACC has in store for itself, I hate this prospect on many levels. How long will FSU and Clemson remain in it, who else from the west would join (and thus join Stanford's division), etc.? 

My first fear has been that Stanford was caught flat-footed and has been slow to respond. My other fear is that it panics and jumps into something that will be binding before the dust settles. I can't imagine Stanford would do much more than entertain the offer, but who knows.

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Ick. Without knowing what the ACC has in store for itself, I hate this prospect on many levels. How long will FSU and Clemson remain in it, who else from the west would join (and thus join Stanford's division), etc.? 

My first fear has been that Stanford was caught flat-footed and has been slow to respond. My other fear is that it panics and jumps into something that will be binding before the dust settles. I can't imagine Stanford would do much more than entertain the offer, but who knows.

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

[ColoradoTree]

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

Not going to lie, I'm more excited to hear from you than that we might be ACC-bound! Glad you're back, and our board really missed your insights this past Women's Tennis season!

As for the ACC rumors, does anyone know if the ACC can add schools w/o mucking up their "ironclad" Grant of Rights? My impression was that they'd need a vote of University heads at a minimum, and it seems like the schools who want a larger share (FSU, Clemson) would be opposed to splitting the pie even more ways. 

Alternatively, maybe the ACC is preparing for the FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA SECXIT, and are looking at some of the Pac-4 to replace them?

My head is spinning...

Thanks! It was a crazy, crazy spring for me personally, so I just had to hunker down. But the impending death of the Pac-12 has brought my head back above the surface!

The GOR issue seems unclear at this point, but I did read from Stewart Mandel that the ACC would be able to bring on Stanford and Cal with a pro-rata share (same as the Big 12 with the P5 additions it's been making), so it wouldn't dilute the piece of the pie the other schools are getting. 

Of course, football-wise, get ready for a basically full slate of After Dark games to make that window attractive for them. That'll be the lot of Oregon/Washington/UCLA in the Big Ten and Arizona/ASU/Utah/Colorado in the Big 12, too. A lot of Pac-12 teams in that window going forward--it's just that none of them will be Pac-12 games.

[ColoradoTree]

ESPN's Pete Thamel is reporting that there has been buzz about Stanford (perhaps with Cal, perhaps without) moving now to the ACC. Specifically, he reported that in the next 24 hours, there are two exploratory ACC calls to vet Stanford and Cal for membership, one with league ADs and one with presidents/chancellors. 

We are in "any port in a storm" territory, and in my view, this is one heck of a port.

Not going to lie, I'm more excited to hear from you than that we might be ACC-bound! Glad you're back, and our board really missed your insights this past Women's Tennis season!

As for the ACC rumors, does anyone know if the ACC can add schools w/o mucking up their "ironclad" Grant of Rights? My impression was that they'd need a vote of University heads at a minimum, and it seems like the schools who want a larger share (FSU, Clemson) would be opposed to splitting the pie even more ways. 

Alternatively, maybe the ACC is preparing for the FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA SECXIT, and are looking at some of the Pac-4 to replace them?

My head is spinning...

Thanks! It was a crazy, crazy spring for me personally, so I just had to hunker down. But the impending death of the Pac-12 has brought my head back above the surface!

The GOR issue seems unclear at this point, but I did read from Stewart Mandel that the ACC would be able to bring on Stanford and Cal with a pro-rata share (same as the Big 12 with the P5 additions it's been making), so it wouldn't dilute the piece of the pie the other schools are getting. 

Of course, football-wise, get ready for a basically full slate of After Dark games to make that window attractive for them. That'll be the lot of Oregon/Washington/UCLA in the Big Ten and Arizona/ASU/Utah/Colorado in the Big 12, too. A lot of Pac-12 teams in that window going forward--it's just that none of them will be Pac-12 games.

[Softball Fan]

I like it but I expect at least a dozen more rumors within the next two weeks.  Stanford football down right now but Stanford University still a very big name nationally and will continue to get attention until a decision is made, whatever that might be.

[Softball Fan]

I like it but I expect at least a dozen more rumors within the next two weeks.  Stanford football down right now but Stanford University still a very big name nationally and will continue to get attention until a decision is made, whatever that might be.

[ColoradoTree]

Here's a rumor: Stanford and Notre Dame have always been thought to be a B1G package, but it's actually the ACC that gets to open that present. Notre Dame is already essentially an ACC member in all sports except football. Makes sense.

If Notre Dame is gettable for the Big Ten, maybe this dalliance is what gets Stanford into the Big Ten on something like what UW/UO got?

[ColoradoTree]

Here's a rumor: Stanford and Notre Dame have always been thought to be a B1G package, but it's actually the ACC that gets to open that present. Notre Dame is already essentially an ACC member in all sports except football. Makes sense.

If Notre Dame is gettable for the Big Ten, maybe this dalliance is what gets Stanford into the Big Ten on something like what UW/UO got?

[ADPinWDC]

I hear from tight Stanford circles that Jack Swarbrick, the current AD at Notre Dame, and a Stanford Law School alum, 
has been engaged in "Stanford - ACC" phone calls all weekend long.  Trying to deal with ADs and Univ Prez circles now.  
Swarbrick is highly respected by all parties as a valid mediator.  
https://www.nd.edu/about/leadership/coun...swarbrick/

That does not guarantee success given all the plates in the air; it means that "Yes, ACC discussions are occurring."  

He had already announced his retirement by June 2024, and has a replacement (Bevaqua) already on campus for the transition.

[ADPinWDC]

I hear from tight Stanford circles that Jack Swarbrick, the current AD at Notre Dame, and a Stanford Law School alum, 
has been engaged in "Stanford - ACC" phone calls all weekend long.  Trying to deal with ADs and Univ Prez circles now.  
Swarbrick is highly respected by all parties as a valid mediator.  
https://www.nd.edu/about/leadership/coun...swarbrick/

That does not guarantee success given all the plates in the air; it means that "Yes, ACC discussions are occurring."  

He had already announced his retirement by June 2024, and has a replacement (Bevaqua) already on campus for the transition.

[dabigv13]

Yeah, supposedly all the ACC members would need to approve new members. Obviously FSU wouldn't want that. I think Stanford to ACC is only a possibility if the ACC loses some of their best and we are the replacement.

In any case, I just can't get excited about Stanford playing an ACC schedule. The travel is atrocious and I don't care about any of those schools.

Supposedly Stanford is not interested in a MWC merger though WSU and OSU met with MWC about that possibility. Stanford also met with Big 12 supposedly but turned them down?

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1688641918731771904?s=20[/tweet]

I'm not a fan of Big 12 either but I think you gotta at least entertain the option to create SOME leverage that can hopefully use with Big 10 to get a reduced price deal done.

[dabigv13]

Yeah, supposedly all the ACC members would need to approve new members. Obviously FSU wouldn't want that. I think Stanford to ACC is only a possibility if the ACC loses some of their best and we are the replacement.

In any case, I just can't get excited about Stanford playing an ACC schedule. The travel is atrocious and I don't care about any of those schools.

Supposedly Stanford is not interested in a MWC merger though WSU and OSU met with MWC about that possibility. Stanford also met with Big 12 supposedly but turned them down?

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1688641918731771904?s=20[/tweet]

I'm not a fan of Big 12 either but I think you gotta at least entertain the option to create SOME leverage that can hopefully use with Big 10 to get a reduced price deal done.

[StanfordMatt]

I’m sorry but how anyone can consider the Atlantic Coast Conference a realistic option is beyond me. No disrespect to other posters, but as someone who travels coast-to-coast regularly for work, it’s a brutal experience. Scheduling extended stay road trips and incorporating school holidays is like the little Dutch boy using his fingers to plug a leaky dike. Imnsho it makes a mockery of the student experience.

I also don't understand the logic behind saying that we don't want to join the Big 12 or MWC because their members are below our academic standing but then sacrificing the academic potential of our student-athletes just so that they can share a basketball or tennis court with opposing players who boast similarly high SAT scores.

[StanfordMatt]

I’m sorry but how anyone can consider the Atlantic Coast Conference a realistic option is beyond me. No disrespect to other posters, but as someone who travels coast-to-coast regularly for work, it’s a brutal experience. Scheduling extended stay road trips and incorporating school holidays is like the little Dutch boy using his fingers to plug a leaky dike. Imnsho it makes a mockery of the student experience.

I also don't understand the logic behind saying that we don't want to join the Big 12 or MWC because their members are below our academic standing but then sacrificing the academic potential of our student-athletes just so that they can share a basketball or tennis court with opposing players who boast similarly high SAT scores.

[fullmetal]

The ACC would be kind of disastrous for the non-revenue sports.  Alas.

[fullmetal]

The ACC would be kind of disastrous for the non-revenue sports.  Alas.

[Giants]

A Stanford/Cal (along with OSU/WSU?) move to the ACC makes sense because of the GOR mess and the current extended TV contract.  Specifically, bringing in new blood gives the conference (and their TV partner, ESPN) a chance to rip up the GOR and revise the TV deal.  This might be enough to placate FSU and Clemson (with a new set of numbers) while adding late night inventory for ESPN.  

Heck, even if the refugees from the West don’t receive a full share initially, it would be a heck of a lot better than the paltry payout they would receive from the MWC.  

For Stanford, football scheduling could include three conference games v. Cal, OSU, WSU, three road conference games v. old ACC members with two back-to-back and three home conference games v. old ACC members.  This would reduce conference travel to two long trips/season.  If future non-conference road games were to be scheduled v. western opponents (old P12 members?), the total long trips/season would only increase from one to two. 

The hang up is hoops and Olympic sports - admittedly a rather sizable issue to surmount….

[Giants]

A Stanford/Cal (along with OSU/WSU?) move to the ACC makes sense because of the GOR mess and the current extended TV contract.  Specifically, bringing in new blood gives the conference (and their TV partner, ESPN) a chance to rip up the GOR and revise the TV deal.  This might be enough to placate FSU and Clemson (with a new set of numbers) while adding late night inventory for ESPN.  

Heck, even if the refugees from the West don’t receive a full share initially, it would be a heck of a lot better than the paltry payout they would receive from the MWC.  

For Stanford, football scheduling could include three conference games v. Cal, OSU, WSU, three road conference games v. old ACC members with two back-to-back and three home conference games v. old ACC members.  This would reduce conference travel to two long trips/season.  If future non-conference road games were to be scheduled v. western opponents (old P12 members?), the total long trips/season would only increase from one to two. 

The hang up is hoops and Olympic sports - admittedly a rather sizable issue to surmount….

[Softball Fan]

I’m sorry but how anyone can consider the Atlantic Coast Conference a realistic option is beyond me. No disrespect to other posters, but as someone who travels coast-to-coast regularly for work, it’s a brutal experience. Scheduling extended stay road trips and incorporating school holidays is like the little Dutch boy using his fingers to plug a leaky dike. Imnsho it makes a mockery of the student experience.

I use to fly to the East coast frequently on business.  From the time an Olympic sports team gets in a shuttle bus to go to the airport for a commercial flight to the time they check into a hotel, is it really that big a difference whether they are in the air for two or four hours.  

I assume you are also against flying to Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland.  What about Olympic sports teams flying to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, etc in mid/late November?

[Softball Fan]

I’m sorry but how anyone can consider the Atlantic Coast Conference a realistic option is beyond me. No disrespect to other posters, but as someone who travels coast-to-coast regularly for work, it’s a brutal experience. Scheduling extended stay road trips and incorporating school holidays is like the little Dutch boy using his fingers to plug a leaky dike. Imnsho it makes a mockery of the student experience.

I use to fly to the East coast frequently on business.  From the time an Olympic sports team gets in a shuttle bus to go to the airport for a commercial flight to the time they check into a hotel, is it really that big a difference whether they are in the air for two or four hours.  

I assume you are also against flying to Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland.  What about Olympic sports teams flying to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, etc in mid/late November?

[Canalejas]

The number of schools that 1) have multiple Top 10 finishes in the Directors' Cup, 2) are widely recognized as excellent schools, and 3) aren't first and foremost football powerhouses is actually incredibly small. It's pretty much Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke.  And, of course, UCLA is off to the B1G.  

Just from that point of view, the idea has a little bit of appeal. 

I guess it's funny to think of how crowded the late night football window might get after all those years of east coast eyeballs, including those of AP voters, turning away before kickoff.

[Canalejas]

The number of schools that 1) have multiple Top 10 finishes in the Directors' Cup, 2) are widely recognized as excellent schools, and 3) aren't first and foremost football powerhouses is actually incredibly small. It's pretty much Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke.  And, of course, UCLA is off to the B1G.  

Just from that point of view, the idea has a little bit of appeal. 

I guess it's funny to think of how crowded the late night football window might get after all those years of east coast eyeballs, including those of AP voters, turning away before kickoff.

[AlbanyCardinal]

I can see the point that it makes some sense for the ACC, as you point out, but I don't see how it'd benefit Stanford in any way. You make it seem as if Stanford has only two choices in all this, between the MWC and the ACC. With all its challenges, I'd much rather Stanford start planning out independence (in football) until the right door opens.

A Stanford/Cal (along with OSU/WSU?) move to the ACC makes sense because of the GOR mess and the current extended TV contract.  Specifically, bringing in new blood gives the conference (and their TV partner, ESPN) a chance to rip up the GOR and revise the TV deal.  This might be enough to placate FSU and Clemson (with a new set of numbers) while adding late night inventory for ESPN.  

Heck, even if the refugees from the West don’t receive a full share initially, it would be a heck of a lot better than the paltry payout they would receive from the MWC.  

For Stanford, football scheduling could include three conference games v. Cal, OSU, WSU, three road conference games v. old ACC members with two back-to-back and three home conference games v. old ACC members.  This would reduce conference travel to two long trips/season.  If future non-conference road games were to be scheduled v. western opponents (old P12 members?), the total long trips/season would only increase from one to two. 

The hang up is hoops and Olympic sports - admittedly a rather sizable issue to surmount….

[AlbanyCardinal]

I can see the point that it makes some sense for the ACC, as you point out, but I don't see how it'd benefit Stanford in any way. You make it seem as if Stanford has only two choices in all this, between the MWC and the ACC. With all its challenges, I'd much rather Stanford start planning out independence (in football) until the right door opens.

A Stanford/Cal (along with OSU/WSU?) move to the ACC makes sense because of the GOR mess and the current extended TV contract.  Specifically, bringing in new blood gives the conference (and their TV partner, ESPN) a chance to rip up the GOR and revise the TV deal.  This might be enough to placate FSU and Clemson (with a new set of numbers) while adding late night inventory for ESPN.  

Heck, even if the refugees from the West don’t receive a full share initially, it would be a heck of a lot better than the paltry payout they would receive from the MWC.  

For Stanford, football scheduling could include three conference games v. Cal, OSU, WSU, three road conference games v. old ACC members with two back-to-back and three home conference games v. old ACC members.  This would reduce conference travel to two long trips/season.  If future non-conference road games were to be scheduled v. western opponents (old P12 members?), the total long trips/season would only increase from one to two. 

The hang up is hoops and Olympic sports - admittedly a rather sizable issue to surmount….

[StanfordMatt]

I’m sorry but how anyone can consider the Atlantic Coast Conference a realistic option is beyond me. No disrespect to other posters, but as someone who travels coast-to-coast regularly for work, it’s a brutal experience. Scheduling extended stay road trips and incorporating school holidays is like the little Dutch boy using his fingers to plug a leaky dike. Imnsho it makes a mockery of the student experience.

I use to fly to the East coast frequently on business.  From the time an Olympic sports team gets in a shuttle bus to go to the airport for a commercial flight to the time they check into a hotel, is it really that big a difference whether they are in the air for two or four hours.  

I assume you are also against flying to Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland.  What about Olympic sports teams flying to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, etc in mid/late November?

A couple points...

First, flying from the east coast to the west coast is closer to 5.5-6 hours depending on the city and the availability of direct flights. Flying east is a bit quicker because of the jet stream but the brutal aspect of that direction is the time difference; it's basically a whole day lost to travel.

Second, you're correct - I'm not thrilled about the prospect of our SA's flying to PSU, Rutgers or UMD either. I think everyone can agree that all of the options being discussed are rather absurd. For me, it's a matter of where to draw the line. Travel in the Big 10 wouldn't be great but not quite as extreme as getting to destinations such as Tallahassee and Clemson (2.5 hour drive from closest major airports: ATL or CLT).

[StanfordMatt]

I’m sorry but how anyone can consider the Atlantic Coast Conference a realistic option is beyond me. No disrespect to other posters, but as someone who travels coast-to-coast regularly for work, it’s a brutal experience. Scheduling extended stay road trips and incorporating school holidays is like the little Dutch boy using his fingers to plug a leaky dike. Imnsho it makes a mockery of the student experience.

I use to fly to the East coast frequently on business.  From the time an Olympic sports team gets in a shuttle bus to go to the airport for a commercial flight to the time they check into a hotel, is it really that big a difference whether they are in the air for two or four hours.  

I assume you are also against flying to Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland.  What about Olympic sports teams flying to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, etc in mid/late November?

A couple points...

First, flying from the east coast to the west coast is closer to 5.5-6 hours depending on the city and the availability of direct flights. Flying east is a bit quicker because of the jet stream but the brutal aspect of that direction is the time difference; it's basically a whole day lost to travel.

Second, you're correct - I'm not thrilled about the prospect of our SA's flying to PSU, Rutgers or UMD either. I think everyone can agree that all of the options being discussed are rather absurd. For me, it's a matter of where to draw the line. Travel in the Big 10 wouldn't be great but not quite as extreme as getting to destinations such as Tallahassee and Clemson (2.5 hour drive from closest major airports: ATL or CLT).

[Mick]

I think the Pac has to keep intact, if only to monetize what they're owed by their NCAA / network contracts. That means, likely, adding 3-4 schools to satisfy conference member ship minimums, rather than take pauper deals (at least at the front end) from existing conferences.

How about if the SEC "lends" a few teams to the Pac 10 to satisfy that need, participate in the windfalls, then add the Pac teams as full members?

[Mick]

I think the Pac has to keep intact, if only to monetize what they're owed by their NCAA / network contracts. That means, likely, adding 3-4 schools to satisfy conference member ship minimums, rather than take pauper deals (at least at the front end) from existing conferences.

How about if the SEC "lends" a few teams to the Pac 10 to satisfy that need, participate in the windfalls, then add the Pac teams as full members?

[82lsju]

Yeah, supposedly all the ACC members would need to approve new members. Obviously FSU wouldn't want that. I think Stanford to ACC is only a possibility if the ACC loses some of their best and we are the replacement.

Hey FSU and Clemson, vote yes and you each get 1.5 revenue shares and the new guys get 0.5 revenue shares...might get them to vote yes....

[82lsju]

Yeah, supposedly all the ACC members would need to approve new members. Obviously FSU wouldn't want that. I think Stanford to ACC is only a possibility if the ACC loses some of their best and we are the replacement.

Hey FSU and Clemson, vote yes and you each get 1.5 revenue shares and the new guys get 0.5 revenue shares...might get them to vote yes....

[crazypaco]

Pitt alumni here who used to live out in the Bay area.

First, Pete Thamel is perhaps the most reliable voice in realignment.  I doubt he tweets that unless Stanford and Cal are being seriously discussed by the ACC. When you see anyone associated with WVU commenting on realignment, it is not generally reliable information.  Several of their bloggers, including the one posted above, have a long track record of just making things up. But when Thamel writes something, from my prior experience with knowing what has gone on with Pitt and what he puts out there, I take it fairly seriously.

Second, this realignment environment and what happened to the Pac is atrocious.  No one wants this for the Pac schools, but here we are.

Things to note about the ACC:

UNC-UVA is the power center which is more stable than you'd think.  UNC AD came out recently blasting FSU statements.  FSU has been a loud malcontent since Bowden left and they have regularly looked to place blame for their poor coaching and financial decisions on anyone but themselves.  Who knows what FSU might do because they don't seem to be speaking or acting logically, but they'll be cutting a half billion check if they do.  Here's an ESPN article on the rest of the conference's reaction: https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ealignment

That said, the current contracts with ESPN and the ACC Network that run through 2036 will keep the ACC as the third conference in the revenue pecking order, but the gap between the ACC and SEC/Big10 is a serious concern that will continually need to be addressed.

Note that Notre Dame is a full legal member with full voting privileges (except on football matters).  They are subject to the same grant-of-rights agreement and exit penalty as everyone else and are contractually bound to play football in the ACC if they decide to have their football program in any conference. However, ND's identity in football is their independence, so don't expect them to ever join a conference unless out of necessity for access to the CFP.

Notre dame must average 5 games against the ACC annually.  Some years they play 4 games, some years 6.  They do not count in conference standings.

Football currently still only plays an 8 game conference schedule.  There is not much initiative within the conference for that to increase because so many schools have annual rivalry games out-of-conference (Clemson-SC; FSU-UF; GT-UGA; UL-UK; Pitt-WVU); plus ND rotating through the conference. If an eight game conference schedule holds, that could leave more flexibility for Stanford and/or Cal to schedule local non-conference games.  So for football, there would be no more than 4 away trips across the country in any season (and if Cal was along for the ride, could be as few as 3 every other year).

That said, I have no idea how things will work for any other sports with round robin type of scheduling like hoops, soccer, or volleyball.  Perhaps there is only a football arrangement to be made. 

Most of the ACC schools are serious about who they academically associate with. The ACC has the highest mean US News ranking in the FBS.  There is an ACC Academic Consortium which primarily focuses on undergraduate research and creativity programs (see acciac.org).

Expansion votes in the ACC must pass by a 3/4ths majority.

I have no idea if it would happen or not.  Clearly a lot of logistical issues to consider. Also, on the ACC's end, it will primarily depend on the details in the contract between the ACC and ESPN.  But I'd personally be happy to have an excuse to fly back out to the Bay area once in a while to watch Stanford and Pitt occasionally play for a Pop Warner trophy.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer them.  Whatever happens, best of luck.

[crazypaco]

Pitt alumni here who used to live out in the Bay area.

First, Pete Thamel is perhaps the most reliable voice in realignment.  I doubt he tweets that unless Stanford and Cal are being seriously discussed by the ACC. When you see anyone associated with WVU commenting on realignment, it is not generally reliable information.  Several of their bloggers, including the one posted above, have a long track record of just making things up. But when Thamel writes something, from my prior experience with knowing what has gone on with Pitt and what he puts out there, I take it fairly seriously.

Second, this realignment environment and what happened to the Pac is atrocious.  No one wants this for the Pac schools, but here we are.

Things to note about the ACC:

UNC-UVA is the power center which is more stable than you'd think.  UNC AD came out recently blasting FSU statements.  FSU has been a loud malcontent since Bowden left and they have regularly looked to place blame for their poor coaching and financial decisions on anyone but themselves.  Who knows what FSU might do because they don't seem to be speaking or acting logically, but they'll be cutting a half billion check if they do.  Here's an ESPN article on the rest of the conference's reaction: https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ealignment

That said, the current contracts with ESPN and the ACC Network that run through 2036 will keep the ACC as the third conference in the revenue pecking order, but the gap between the ACC and SEC/Big10 is a serious concern that will continually need to be addressed.

Note that Notre Dame is a full legal member with full voting privileges (except on football matters).  They are subject to the same grant-of-rights agreement and exit penalty as everyone else and are contractually bound to play football in the ACC if they decide to have their football program in any conference. However, ND's identity in football is their independence, so don't expect them to ever join a conference unless out of necessity for access to the CFP.

Notre dame must average 5 games against the ACC annually.  Some years they play 4 games, some years 6.  They do not count in conference standings.

Football currently still only plays an 8 game conference schedule.  There is not much initiative within the conference for that to increase because so many schools have annual rivalry games out-of-conference (Clemson-SC; FSU-UF; GT-UGA; UL-UK; Pitt-WVU); plus ND rotating through the conference. If an eight game conference schedule holds, that could leave more flexibility for Stanford and/or Cal to schedule local non-conference games.  So for football, there would be no more than 4 away trips across the country in any season (and if Cal was along for the ride, could be as few as 3 every other year).

That said, I have no idea how things will work for any other sports with round robin type of scheduling like hoops, soccer, or volleyball.  Perhaps there is only a football arrangement to be made. 

Most of the ACC schools are serious about who they academically associate with. The ACC has the highest mean US News ranking in the FBS.  There is an ACC Academic Consortium which primarily focuses on undergraduate research and creativity programs (see acciac.org).

Expansion votes in the ACC must pass by a 3/4ths majority.

I have no idea if it would happen or not.  Clearly a lot of logistical issues to consider. Also, on the ACC's end, it will primarily depend on the details in the contract between the ACC and ESPN.  But I'd personally be happy to have an excuse to fly back out to the Bay area once in a while to watch Stanford and Pitt occasionally play for a Pop Warner trophy.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer them.  Whatever happens, best of luck.

[Canalejas]

Thanks for the insight, Paco! That's a lot of really good information.

[Canalejas]

Thanks for the insight, Paco! That's a lot of really good information.