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

[PonyPride]

From ESPN.com:

Sources: Cal, Stanford to ACC hits 'significant roadblocks'
Pete Thamel
Andrea Adelson

The ACC presidents met Wednesday night, and the pursuit of Cal and Stanford for conference membership has "hit significant roadblocks," sources told ESPN.

No vote was taken, but conversations about expansion among the league presidents are expected to continue as they wrestle with the best way to position the league into the future, sources said.

Talks about Cal and Stanford picked up after the Pac-12 broke apart last week, but there had always been long odds the schools would join the conference because there is not a significant financial value add. For a league that is staring at a looming revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten that could reach $30 million annually, adding revenue must be a major factor for consideration.

SMU also had been bandied about as a potential addition to the ACC, and those conversations aren't headed anywhere, either, sources said. Cal and Stanford remain far more appealing to a faction of league presidents because of their academic and brand value, even though they would not bring in a financial windfall.

To read this article in its entirety, CLICK HERE.

[EastStang]

Wonder if the significant roadblock is from ESPN. We ain't paying more for those schools to join. We can't afford the deal we have now. News broke from ESPN reporter. The quote I saw was interesting in that the pushback against ND is "why don't you join for football too?" So, ND is pushing, but doesn't want a full marriage. Apparently, there are no other schools that want to push these schools. It's not dead, but there are roadblocks. ND basketball draws viewership and I don't think the ACC would want to lose ND for other sports, but who knows. I'm not sure what their grant of rights looks like compared to everyone else. Can they walk? So, its not over until it's over, but it looks like our life is with the AAC or some new version of the PAC for the foreseeable future. Win and things may change.

[rodrod5]

The ACC media deal is paying about $25 million per member right now and that goes up about $1 million per year. When people talk about a "pro rata" they very often want to talk about a full conference distribution, but that is not what the pro rata covers. The pro rata covers the media money not a full conference distribution.

So when you talk about a pro rata share for each new member you are talking about $25 million in new money for each new member added and that going up by about $1 million per member per year. So SMU, Stanford, and Cal being added to the ACC would result in $75 million in new media money for the conference to work with.

If SMU is willing to take nothing that is $25 million. If Stanford and Cal are willing to take $15 million each that is another $20 million. So that means a conference with 14.5 members has $45 million to work with for new money for the existing members. So you are basically looking at $3 million in new money per existing member to have SMU join your conference taking no money for the entire 12 years left on the media deal. And it was only indicated that SMU would do that for "a few years". Then you have Stanford and Cal making $15 million each.

It does not really seem all that lucrative to have three members in that type of financial situation with all of them in islands away from the conference. A pretty decent chunk of that could get eaten up on travel along especially for Olympic sports.

The ACC GOR looks very similar to the Big 12 GOR and that proved to be "Texas proof" so it should be very solid.

You also have to consider that for Stanford and Cal is $15 million with $1 million per year in growth worth it to them. Plus you have to wonder if they can do better going a different way than joining a conference about as far across the country and can be from them.

[Red Dragon Coog]

Offering to play for free is weird and desperate.

[rodrod5]

Offering to play for free is weird and desperate.

UH would have done the same if they could have afforded it. If the Big 12 had decent leadership Houston would still be in the AAC and even half decent leadership they would have made Houston pay $24 million or so out of pocket just to join at a long time reduced rate.

[ShantyBoy]

On your cigarette break again at the 7-11 we see. Not as weird and desperate as having such low self- esteem that you go trolling on another team’s fan page looking for the self-validation you obviously didn’t get growing up, much less from your experience at coog high, if you even went there. Now get back to the slurpee machine troll, your break is over.

[ROCKNEPONY]

To have alumni that love their schoool so much that they will provide 200 million, out of thier own funds, to advance SMU Athletics is called commitment not desperation.

It shows that the donors, and thus the school, have the resources and will to make SMU a powerhouse in ANY P5 smart enough to add the school. It shows SMU is just scratching the surface of success that would come with P5 association. baylor, houston, tcwho all know this and live in FEAR and jealousy thus blocking SMU's rise whenever possible. Jealousy is ugly, generosity is uncommon and this is uncommon generosity that communicates commitment to succeed.

[Hoofbeat83]

To have alumni that love their schoool so much that they will provide 200 million, out of thier own funds, to advance SMU Athletics is called commitment not desperation.

It shows that the donors, and thus the school, have the resources and will to make SMU a powerhouse in ANY P5 smart enough to add the school. It shows SMU is just scratching the surface of success that would come with P5 association. baylor, houston, tcwho all know this and live in FEAR and jealousy thus blocking SMU's rise whenever possible. Jealousy is ugly, generosity is uncommon and this is uncommon generosity that communicates commitment to succeed.

Well said. I'm sure tcu and baylor people are sharing a laugh over this, but f 'em. Just using to our advantage what has historically been our advantage.

[ROCKNEPONY]

laughing at those who work diligently and creatively to succeed in less than optimal circumstances is central to the identity of those laughing. It helps the oppressing group prop-up a perception of superiprity off the backs of those they work to keep down. We all remember the kids that did this same behavior in Jr high and high school. It a coping mechanism helping those populations cover-up thier own known shortcomings at the expense of others. It is a common action of an oppressor who fears the oppressed.

SMU has loyal alumni because it has a culture that builds success within its population and we remember. Success not always being financial. Not all creative solutions succeed but creative response is the mark of a successful population.

[EastStang]

Northwestern used to have a cheer when the other team scored. That's all right, that's okay, you're going to work for us some day.

[BUS]

That is a cute cheer.


I used to go to texas... then my daddy got a job.
Tri delt's I think.

[orguy]

Offering to play for free is weird and desperate.

Posting trollish comments on another team's board is the definition
of desperate.

[ROCKNEPONY]

I love the fun of rivalries, the Texas taunting afforded to football fans "against" one another. It's our in state rivalries, bragging rights and long history which makes these games fun and teams enjoyable to play.

Jabs when they are related to game days and football are the dirty fun of the sport.

That said, football in Texas thrives when the state is filled with fans. Fans thrive when thier schools have platforms on which to compete at the highest level state-wide. It's important the fans and administrations of each school recognize the importance of healthy football programs state wide. Texas is the STATE of football as a group and we are stronger and college football is healthier together. I'm not sure Texas wants to become like other places where only one large state school keeps everyone else down and out. I was proud SMU invited UNT to the AAC and wasn't afraid of the competition.

In the end is tcu, Baylor, Houston, Texas tech going to fill the role of the semi professional leagues Texas college team? if college goes that route? It benefits all Texas universities to have strong football at as many of our universities as is possible.

[orguy]

Tcwho, Rape u, "Tech", and Cougar High have formed a cabal
to keep SMU out of the truckstop little 12. Good for the sport?
Not if one is a fan of SMU football.

BTW: Rice is an example of an elite school that has correctly
chosen to minimize the role of Football. Wise in their specific
case. They are owls after all.

[mtrout]

I mean...it's not like we outplayed Houston, UCF, Cincy, or BYU.