Water Pony wrote:Thank you, Graceland Tar Heel, for the thoughtful post. Your premise makes sense and contributes to the reason why strong, historically healthy brands, such as Stanford, Cal, and SMU, are not obvious invitees to ACC.
Smaller enrollments in private schools do limit potential viewership, despite the quality and upside they might bring. Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Duke would struggle to be included if not for their incumbency in a current P5 (soon to be P4 or less) conference.
The question for you is how the ACC is viewing and protecting its future as a P4 conference? I would think expansion would be a positive for the conference.
FSU and perhaps Clemson are "football factory" state schools, which are threatening the athletic budgets of their conference mates. By demanding a greater share than other ACC school members, they want to be "rewarded" for their media impact and perpetuate preferential treatment vis-a-vis other ACC schools. It might be necessary, but hardly fair.
Part of me says the ACC should not feel blackmailed now or in the future. You and others might benefit by saying no or wishing them well if they can find a home in the SEC. Perhaps UNC wants a B1G10 invite themselves? As for NC State, I can't imagine them being invited to a P2 Conference.
Strange world!
The "u"NC post above is a pretty decent ACC history summary, but one thing that is hugely relevant but not mentioned about the ACC's struggles is the drastic underperformance going back years of the school now whining the most about how much they are worth: F$U. If they, Miami, and Va Tech had been anywhere close to their historical performance over the last decade, the ACC would be in far better shape.
Meanwhile, we now have u*NC's most successful coach speaking to the media and saying to Stanford and Cal: Drop Dead.
fan wrote:Seeing a ton of Cal/Stanford to ACC on the interwebs with the Presidents vote on Tuesday but unfortunately not much about SMU.
Clearly Stanford is pushing hard to be coupled with Cal. And that makes sense. They have a very close association that goes back for more than a century.
PerunaPunch wrote:I would like to add the Cotton Bowl was originally nicknamed "The House that Doak Built". Which is not entirely true, but the popularity of SMU in the day is what caused a 20-something thousand seat expansion of that facility.
The reason I point this out is that DFW would be the LARGEST media market in the ACC I believe. Dallas fans are notoriously fickle because we have so many entertainment choices (or so we believe). So what I'm trying to get at, is if SMU can string together a few years of quality teams playing opponents people care about watching, we can deliver the eyeballs. Potentially, as many or more than your state schools.
Oh, I know SWC history, including that nickname for the Cotton Bowl. My mother grew up in AR, and her brother was career Air Force, and he spent his favorite years stationed in TX. He loved SWC sports, and hated the Longhorns even more than he hated the Aggies. So I always followed SWC football. I still tell people that the best option QB I have ever seen is Lance McIlhenny.
Lance McIlhenny was one hell of an option quarterback.
Retired women's soccer coach? His view means less than nothing, to the Presidents and Chancellors as well as to ADs.
Dorrance is an absolute legend over there, as you (should) well know. And it is a stunningly predatory viewpoint, which aligns with your "no" vote on expansion.
I'm not sure what question you are asking. But some media reports are that SMU would have to find $40M per year to make up foregoing media rights. In fact SMU would be giving up the $7M per year it would get from the ACC deal plus departure fees if it goes to the ACC. I don't know how the school handles its bookkeeping these days but at one time the Athletic Department reimbursed the school for the entire cost of tuition for scholarship athletes. Maybe an accountant could chime in on what it means to tap into the endowment. I'm not sure exactly what that means.
Eventually the B1G and the SEC will compete for the top brands in the ACC. Virginia and NC are both AAU and flagship state universities so the B1G will pounce. I doubt if the B1G will fight for private schools. Florida St. and Clemson are perfect for the SEC. I think Kansas is small potatoes despite being a flagship AAU member. Kansas is such a small state that I can't see that they matter much in football. I'm a bit perplexed that NC State is trying to keep us out of the ACC. I am not confident that they will get a power 2 bid.
I don’t believe we have enough endowment to raid it so we can play in the ACC…Tulane, Tufts, TCU, Case Western, W&L, etc, ALL have bigger endowments V SMU - Stanford’s is like 20x ours. Somebody’s high on the hilltop.
GHammond wrote:I don’t believe we have enough endowment to raid it so we can play in the ACC…Tulane, Tufts, TCU, Case Western, W&L, etc, ALL have bigger endowments V SMU - Stanford’s is like 20x ours. Somebody’s high on the hilltop.
Why not? We have a $2 billion endowment. If we designate the first 1% of ROI to athletics, that's $20 million, and you're not even hitting the fund itself, just slowing its growth. If we do this for 5-7 years I think it would be worth it in the long run.
