I'm personally looking forward to these games for soccer, field hockey and women's lacrosse immensely.
And I'd muuuuuuch prefer BC play Stanford in football too, than Wake or Duke or UVA or Pitt.
Realignment 2023: Whither the Pac12?
- Thread starter Zososoxfan
- Start date
And I'd muuuuuuch prefer BC play Stanford in football too, than Wake or Duke or UVA or Pitt.
I was thinking the same thing w/regard to Stanford and Cal before they made the ACC switch.
BC played them in 1979 (probably a couple more times but that's the one that sticks out). Killed them, actually, after going 0-11 in 1978. Stanford had a freshman qb named Elway or something like that.
Don't remember them playing Cal in anything.
For field hockey, it's moving from the America East to the ACC. Quite the jump.
Cal basically did this by accident (while, admittedly, also somehow punting basketball) and it's costing them several million a year.
You'd think SMU & TCU should be on the same level and haven't been for quite some time. TCU was a doormat in the SWC along w/Rice until around the time SMU's program fell off the map.
I know this is tongue in cheek, but i kind of am? They are great road destinations and potentially winnable conference road games in football. I get what you are saying in a vacuum, but I prefer Cuse-Cal to, say, Cuse-Wash St. And...in hoops those are great games.
I’m not so sure. Basically all the non-revenue sports are going to go to the Bay Area once a year. Maybe not even that. This is a conference where schools in New York and Massachusetts are flying to Florida, Georgia, Kentucky and Indiana for years. Going to Dallas is in line with that.
For the existing members travel will increase a little but it’s certainly not going to eat them up.
Obviously it’ll be worse for the new schools. But they’re desperate.
BC played Cal here in 1986 (BC won). Cal‘s best player was LB Hardy Nickerson, who had a decent NFL career.
More than decent -- borderline HOF, imo. 16 seasons, 2x All Pro, 1990s 2nd Team All Decade. Great player.
AAC targeting Army to replace SMU. Navy's fan base loves to complain about the difference in SOS; this would at least eliminate that excuse.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38312054/sources-aac-targets-army-join-conference-football
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38312054/sources-aac-targets-army-join-conference-football
The most important thing is that the ACC didn’t take UConn because THAT would have been an inexplicable add. These other three adds much more logical
Stanford, Cal and SMU all have football stadia on campus or directly adjacent if not technically on property.
Well, we are talking about $50M in new TV money, right? Even with the reduced share, Cal and Stanford are getting most of that. I'm not sure how the remainder is going to be distributed but I have to think the schools are not going to see much when it gets split from the existing schools. Having to go all the way out there so often, with every sport, is going to start adding up.
The point of adding them is so that ESPN can have 10 PM ET football games to air.
I thought I saw that ESPN didn’t have a say in the teams picked. It was in the ACC contract that they would have to pay the ACC something like 24 million per team added.
The ACC gets a pro-rata payment from ESPN, which means close to $100 million annually. Stanford and Cal are taking 30% shares ($10-12 million), SMU’s taking nothing.
So we’re talking about $70-80 million going to the other 15 members, some on a straight split, some as part of success incentives.
The league already said the schools will only go to the west coast once per year for Olympic sports — and that will replace an existing conference road trip. That’s far from a back-breaker in terms of travel budget. Hell it may be cheaper for some schools to get to SFO than flights to more remote conference spots.
Hoops is only going west once every 2 years. Football only 2-3 times every 5 years.
The travel’s gonna be tough for Stanford and Cal, but it’s really no big deal for the rest of the league.
why does the ACC care about their member institutions’ football infrastructure? Ale is oversimplifying, but that’s his point.
Jim Mora is a significant part of UConns football infrastructure more so than if the stadium is 5 minutes away vs 20. Uconn football facilities on campus are top notch.
Youk it’s time to wave the flag. Let’s just win more championships in the sport we care care more about.
I wonder if ACC leadership was aware of Jim Mora and his 5-8 record against FBS opponents.
Not on game day. Where are you going to have College Game Day, DP Dough? The Parking Lot at Buckland Hills? May as we do it at Bristol
And no one is coming to the back woods of Storrs for Jim f’in Mora
You just can’t have a college atmosphere at Silver Lane. Build some lots and restaurants to the north/east of the Dairy Bar and build a stadium there and widen 195 and 32 and then we’re talking.
No big time atmosphere or infrastructure yet.
The Rent was fine back when we were in a conference with regional rivals. Constant sellouts, strong tailgating.
RGIII said outside of Texas and Oklahoma the rent was the toughest place for him to play.
A place on campus would be great but based on the decisions these conferences are making, the college experience ir student experience is way way down the list.
I suppose if we were willing to take no money or 5 mil a year like the others did we may have gotten a sniff. Who knows. This was a quick money grab as much as anything for the schools not leaving in the next 10 years.
It is a move that will hurt the ACC hoops quite a bit in basketball however. Perhaps if that takes its toll with all the metrics involved the ACC may want to add us after all.
RGIII said outside of Texas and Oklahoma the rent was the toughest place for him to play.
A place on campus would be great but based on the decisions these conferences are making, the college experience ir student experience is way way down the list.
I suppose if we were willing to take no money or 5 mil a year like the others did we may have gotten a sniff. Who knows. This was a quick money grab as much as anything for the schools not leaving in the next 10 years.
It is a move that will hurt the ACC hoops quite a bit in basketball however. Perhaps if that takes its toll with all the metrics involved the ACC may want to add us after all.
Last edited:
I spoke with someone on the inside of UConn football the other day. His assessment: UConn needs to be realistic about a few things:
(1) UConn will never ever ever be in the conversation for the national championship.
(2) Football is still the most important sport because football drives everything in college athletics.
So
(3) It's important for UConn to decide whether to be relevant in football or not. If so, a LOT more needs to be done, but if not, then the program needs to just be dropped or dropped down to the next level.
But
(4) If UConn drops football altogether, it will have an important impact on the rest of the athletic department, like scholarships for women. There's 85 full scholarships given out to men for football (I guess technically it's not limited to men, but that's who they're going to go to). Title IX would then require cutting 85 full women's scholarships if football were gone in order to even things out. Of course, he didn't mention that another solution would be to scrap football and instead add wrestling, men's swimming and diving, and a couple other sports in order to get back those 85 scholarships. But then those are all totally non-revenue sports. Where would the athletic department get its funding from?
Just as a quick comp of some random football programs...
Michigan State
- Income: $68m
- Expenses: $44m
Alabama
- Income: $131m
- Expenses: $79m
Stanford
- Income: $41m
- Expenses: $28m
Syracuse
- Income: $43m
- Expenses: $28m
TCU
- Income: $61m
- Expenses: $41m
UConn
- Income: $5m
- Expenses: $18m
It's REALLY hard to compete as is with these kinds of numbers. They need a legit TV deal. Can't get it unless they're in a P5 (or P4 or whatever) conference or if they're Notre Dame.
(1) UConn will never ever ever be in the conversation for the national championship.
(2) Football is still the most important sport because football drives everything in college athletics.
So
(3) It's important for UConn to decide whether to be relevant in football or not. If so, a LOT more needs to be done, but if not, then the program needs to just be dropped or dropped down to the next level.
But
(4) If UConn drops football altogether, it will have an important impact on the rest of the athletic department, like scholarships for women. There's 85 full scholarships given out to men for football (I guess technically it's not limited to men, but that's who they're going to go to). Title IX would then require cutting 85 full women's scholarships if football were gone in order to even things out. Of course, he didn't mention that another solution would be to scrap football and instead add wrestling, men's swimming and diving, and a couple other sports in order to get back those 85 scholarships. But then those are all totally non-revenue sports. Where would the athletic department get its funding from?
Just as a quick comp of some random football programs...
Michigan State
- Income: $68m
- Expenses: $44m
Alabama
- Income: $131m
- Expenses: $79m
Stanford
- Income: $41m
- Expenses: $28m
Syracuse
- Income: $43m
- Expenses: $28m
TCU
- Income: $61m
- Expenses: $41m
UConn
- Income: $5m
- Expenses: $18m
It's REALLY hard to compete as is with these kinds of numbers. They need a legit TV deal. Can't get it unless they're in a P5 (or P4 or whatever) conference or if they're Notre Dame.
In a world with no good options, I think what UConn is doing is pretty reasonable: let basketball be in a good place and just try to keep football afloat until the paradigm changes.
UConn decided 15-20 years too late to try in football. If they jumped up to 1A in the 80s things might have turned out differently.
They also have been the victim of lousy circumstances and timing. Had the Big 12 invited Louisville instead of West Virginia, then maybe UConn would have won the bake off with WVU for the ACC spot that opened up when Maryland left. They weren’t going to beat out UL — their athletics programs are too well funded.
I feel for UConn, but at the same time see my point about when they should have upgraded football. They got a golden ticket being able to join a power conference. No one else got that access. Unfortunately for them it was a golden ticket to a conference that was already imploding.
I feel far worse for schools like Oregon State and Washington State, who have lost access to a power conference through no fault of their own. They invested, funded, upgraded… and still got kicked out of the club.
They also have been the victim of lousy circumstances and timing. Had the Big 12 invited Louisville instead of West Virginia, then maybe UConn would have won the bake off with WVU for the ACC spot that opened up when Maryland left. They weren’t going to beat out UL — their athletics programs are too well funded.
I feel for UConn, but at the same time see my point about when they should have upgraded football. They got a golden ticket being able to join a power conference. No one else got that access. Unfortunately for them it was a golden ticket to a conference that was already imploding.
I feel far worse for schools like Oregon State and Washington State, who have lost access to a power conference through no fault of their own. They invested, funded, upgraded… and still got kicked out of the club.
I think it's interesting that in this shuffle the "club" (or clubs, if you will) invited BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, Houston and SMU to join in place of those two. I can see geography being Washington State's mortal enemy, but what's the difference between Eugene and Corvallis?
Geography isn’t the issue in Oregon. UO has had the full financial backing of Phil Knight. Look at their facilities, it’s insane.
And I have a feeling that sometime in the future the same might be said of the ACC... there will be no end to conferences getting picked and raided to continue to consolidate football powers. I don't really view anything outside of the SEC or B1G as a "safe" conference for anyone to join.
For sure. Obviously the biggest reason the ACC added Cal, Stanford and SMU was to have more schools (and votes) when others eventually leave.
UNC signaled clearly that they’re gonna bolt for the B1G as soon as they can make the numbers work.
Ultimately I think there may be 2.5 power conferences. The B1G, SEC and then a Land of Misfit Toys mashup of the Big 12 and ACC, after schools there leave for the big 2. This will take 15 years. It’ll be stupid.
Personally, the one saving grace for me if/when UNC heels for the B1G is I can go back to rooting for them and BC in every single sport like I could when BC was in the Big East. Right now my loyalties are sort of tied in field hockey, w lacrosse, and basketball and a couple other sports. Would then finally root for BC w soccer in all conference games (can’t do that now, thanks Mia).
However would then have to follow the B1G in everything, since UNC is good at so many sports, and that would be a huge time commitment (not a B1G fan) and the worse case scenario, an early round rematch of hell (‘94 March Madness, that was the ultimate Sophie’s Choice/Solomons for me)
However would then have to follow the B1G in everything, since UNC is good at so many sports, and that would be a huge time commitment (not a B1G fan) and the worse case scenario, an early round rematch of hell (‘94 March Madness, that was the ultimate Sophie’s Choice/Solomons for me)
The day that Duke and UNC are no longer in the same conference will be the day that football finally sucks the soul out of basketball. I don't look forward to seeing it happen.
I could see Duke being pulled into the B1G w/UNC instead of UVA partly because of NW already being there.
the SEC could also expand by 4 instead of 2 and take VT and the other team left (Duke/UVA) to partner with Vandy so to speak
who knows though
but if eiether the Virginia or Nc schools split up it will be a sad day
Last edited:
Maybe that sort of thing will finally create a divorce between college football and the rest of the sports.
Just hypothesizing, but if somehow Clemson, FSU, UVA Duke and UNC all leave for SEC/B1G, would ACC consider adding Rice, instead of Wash St/Oregon State? Their football is bad, and probably have to add some olympic sports, but makes more sense on a cultural/academic level.
Thinking
ACC East
Syracuse
Pitt
NC State
Wake
BC
VT
ACC West
Stanford
Cal
Rice
SMU
Louisville
GT
Or in that case VT and Louisvlle also leave and you move GT to East, and you add Oregon State and Wash St to West.
Thinking
ACC East
Syracuse
Pitt
NC State
Wake
BC
VT
ACC West
Stanford
Cal
Rice
SMU
Louisville
GT
Or in that case VT and Louisvlle also leave and you move GT to East, and you add Oregon State and Wash St to West.
I think you are right. And imagine if the Pac-12 had this kind of year set up when they started negotiating their TV deal a couple years ago. I'm not sure they'd have made enough to keep those bastards in SoCal from leaving but with elite programs in WA, OR, Utah, OR St, and an ascending CO, maybe things would have turned out different.
Army to the AAC. Football only. Army-Navy game will continue to be played as a non-conference game in its current week.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38741191/army-set-join-aac-football-sources-say-navy-game-intact
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38741191/army-set-join-aac-football-sources-say-navy-game-intact
Really do think that soccer-style promotion-relegation would be the thing for football.
I'll throw this out for fun while I'm eating my lunch.
The Premier League is the top 12 teams in the country. I'll use end of 2022 ESPN rankings. So that would be: Georgia, TCU, Michigan, Ohio St., Bama, Tennessee, Penn St., Washington, Tulane, Florida St., Utah, LSU.
That would be a 12-team league, everyone plays everyone once. Top 4 in W-L advance to playoffs. 1 hosts 4, 2 hosts 3, winners meet for the crown.
Bottom 3 get relegated.
There is a Tier II East, Central, and West. That's teams 13-48, roughly speaking, geographically divided into leagues of 12. Everyone plays everyone once, top two teams meet for a promotion game, each of East, Central West promotes the winner of their promotion game to the Premier League. Each receives the most geographically convenient demoted school from the PL. Bottom two teams get relegated from each of the three Tier II leagues, for a total of six going down.
You then have six leagues in Tier III, geographically distributed. This gets you teams 49-120 in the country, which is almost all of current FBS (133 schools). Again, 12 team leagues. Each promotes the winner of its championship game to one of the Tier II leagues, and receives one of the demoted teams from Tier II, again based on geography. Each also demotes the worst two teams to Tier IV.
Then you get into Tier IV, etc.
I have thought that this has been going on de facto for years. Schools with success from smaller conferences like Boise, TCU, etc., even if they don't move conferences, they get "promoted" by getting better TV dates and games. The "group of schools that gets the best TV slots" is really the top tier of college football, which is mostly congruent with (but not always) the top conferences.
I'll throw this out for fun while I'm eating my lunch.
The Premier League is the top 12 teams in the country. I'll use end of 2022 ESPN rankings. So that would be: Georgia, TCU, Michigan, Ohio St., Bama, Tennessee, Penn St., Washington, Tulane, Florida St., Utah, LSU.
That would be a 12-team league, everyone plays everyone once. Top 4 in W-L advance to playoffs. 1 hosts 4, 2 hosts 3, winners meet for the crown.
Bottom 3 get relegated.
There is a Tier II East, Central, and West. That's teams 13-48, roughly speaking, geographically divided into leagues of 12. Everyone plays everyone once, top two teams meet for a promotion game, each of East, Central West promotes the winner of their promotion game to the Premier League. Each receives the most geographically convenient demoted school from the PL. Bottom two teams get relegated from each of the three Tier II leagues, for a total of six going down.
You then have six leagues in Tier III, geographically distributed. This gets you teams 49-120 in the country, which is almost all of current FBS (133 schools). Again, 12 team leagues. Each promotes the winner of its championship game to one of the Tier II leagues, and receives one of the demoted teams from Tier II, again based on geography. Each also demotes the worst two teams to Tier IV.
Then you get into Tier IV, etc.
I have thought that this has been going on de facto for years. Schools with success from smaller conferences like Boise, TCU, etc., even if they don't move conferences, they get "promoted" by getting better TV dates and games. The "group of schools that gets the best TV slots" is really the top tier of college football, which is mostly congruent with (but not always) the top conferences.
I would watch a shit ton more college football if the above were in place.
How long until BC is playing Pine Manor and Lasell?
How long until BC is playing Pine Manor and Lasell?
Pine Manor and Lasell have football?
In any case, I would get a kick out of BC playingBentley like they recently started in hockey after Bentley moved up.(nice arena)
that’s a very underrated tailgating experience for football too (Bentley)
I love this idea. Trying to think about how it would affect me. I assume in the English football pyramid system, each league has it's own set of executives that just run that league, right? So I imagine it would work the same way in college, there's a group that would run just "Tier 1" all the way down to Tier 7 or whatever.
Not blaming you for not addressing this, because nobody in charge of college sports thinks about them either, but.... this seems wildly unfair to the athletes. They're asked to choose a college with no guarantee what level they'll even play at for their four year career? And if you counter that by allowing free transfers for any team moving up/down, well, that just introduces unrestricted free agency into the college game. Both options seem untenable.
That said, I'm with Lose... I'd watch the shit out of this Premier League.
Why should the players have certainty over the tier they play in? They don’t have certainty now that the team they choose is guaranteed a certain bowl or whatever.
I think it’s a lot fairer that UCLA drops a tier by going 2-9 than for a kid who just signed his letter of intent at UCLA to find out that they just threw out 100 years of tradition and joined the freaking B1G
I think it’s a lot fairer that UCLA drops a tier by going 2-9 than for a kid who just signed his letter of intent at UCLA to find out that they just threw out 100 years of tradition and joined the freaking B1G