Don't stick a fork in the ACC yet...

[WhosYourDawggy]

It's the reality of being in today's P2, everyone is taking more losses then what they had before.
It doesn't just apply to Clemson


I know you're a smart person. You're not turning away $50M+ either.
OU, UT, UCLA, USC, Ore, Wash didn't turn away the money, why should Clemson?

The difference for Clemson is that those of us in the better conferences have already been playing those though games. Now we have a few more. Clemson in the SEC, as an example, would be a way different experience that what UGA faces now that OU and TX are in the SEC. Your soft ACC schedule has been a Godsend for you ... better be careful what you ask for.

Sure, take the $50 million, but my point is don't expect to get into the CFP every year like you would in the ACC. You would have missed 2 of the last 3 years even playing in the ACC. If you are good with that, cool.

 

[TaikoTiger]

The difference for Clemson is that those of us in the better conferences have already been playing those though games. Now we have a few more. Clemson in the SEC, as an example, would be a way different experience that what UGA faces now that OU and TX are in the SEC. Your soft ACC schedule has been a Godsend for you ... better be careful what you ask for.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Great GIF and all, but you disagree? You go from your top 3 teams you would play being what, FSU, UNC and Miami to UGA, Bama, Texas/OU/LSU or tOSU, UM, PSU/Oregon. You don't see the difference? And I didn't even go to the next, say, 6 teams. Again, watch what you wish for ... switching conferences hasn't worked out all that well for teams that switched. But you get $50 million to lose, you got that going for you.

 

[TaikoTiger]

Sure, take the $50 million, but my point is don't expect to get into the CFP every year like you would in the ACC. You would have missed 2 of the last 3 years even playing in the ACC. If you are good with that, cool.

Kind of defeats the purpose of staying for the sake of higher win % and playoff participation banners.

10/10 would take 50M, plus more TV exposure, better recruiting, better games , better traveling fans but sure we should pass on that just so we can hang 12-team playoff banners all around stadium

 

[TaikoTiger]

Great GIF and all, but you disagree? You go from your top 3 teams you would play being what, FSU, UNC and Miami to UGA, Bama, Texas/OU/LSU or tOSU, UM, PSU/Oregon. You don't see the difference? And I didn't even go to the next, say, 6 teams. Again, watch what you wish for ... switching conferences hasn't worked out all that well for teams that switched. But you get $50 million to lose, you got that going for you.

Define "hasn't worked out". Seems to me A&M, Mizz only upgraded their programs with more money, more exposure, better recruiting and more top 25 seasons since joining

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Kind of defeats the purpose of staying for the sake of higher win % and playoff participation banners.

10/10 would take 50M, plus more TV exposure, better recruiting, better games , better traveling fans but sure we should pass on that just so we can hang 12-team playoff banners all around stadium

I don't know ... seems like it got you to NCs. Time will tell.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Define "hasn't worked out". Seems to me A&M, Mizz only upgraded their programs with more money, more exposure, better recruiting and more top 25 seasons since joining

Mizzou, seriously? ATM? What have they won? I mean, if you want to be with the Mizzous and the ATMs in the world instead of winning NCs, good luck.

 

[duckboy33]

If Clemson wants to remain a national contender, they will need P2 level money in the future. They need to make that move and it appears that the school understands this and is actively working to make themselves available.

I understand why other fans hope they get stuck in the ACC because it will hurt them in recruiting or because they're afraid the ACC will be a diminished product if they leave. But it's silly to pretend that's what's best for Clemson.

 

[Deep Creek]

The name brands are typically the best teams. That's the point. Again, save me the exceptions to the rule.

Sooooo, Utah is a brand name. I’ll be damned. Learn something new every single day. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[duckboy33]

Sooooo, Utah is a brand name. I’ll be damned. Learn something new every single day. Thanks for enlightening me.

There you go again. Your crops should be good with all the straw men that you've built.

When you compare Utah, Arizona, ASU and Colorado you see 4 pretty comparable universities, markets, etc. However, only one has consistently played winning football and has shown a financial commitment to winning. That's why they're higher on the big board than the others. I'm done here unless you want to discuss the issue in good faith.

 

[Deep Creek]

There you go again. Your crops should be good with all the straw men that you've built.

When you compare Utah, Arizona, ASU and Colorado you see 4 pretty comparable universities, markets, etc. However, only one has consistently played winning football and has shown a financial commitment to winning. That's why they're higher on the big board than the others. I'm done here unless you want to discuss the issue in good faith.

Okay, let’s get back to “good faith” which was what I thought I was doing in asking questions regarding why you see Utah as “more valuable” than the other three. (BTW, using terms like “straw man” isn’t good faith so that goes both ways.)

I agree totally with your first sentence in the second paragraph. And I agree with your sentence right after that because facts prove Utah has played better football than the other three have for quite a while. I have no idea about the levels of commitment to football but I would assume Utah is better in that area as well.

Where we disagree is on the “higher on the board” part. And I only say that because recent history shows conferences don’t care as much about recent football success and/or commitment as they do about how much viewership you can bring them….whether you’ve been played good football or not. And the landscape is full of facts in that area just like the fact that Utah has been better in recent years. I know you know these examples but they represent why I disagree.

A&M - they were middle of the road in Bg 12 play for years prior to and during the SEC move. But the SEC wanted the eyeballs (aka $$$) they would bring.

Mizzou was a little better than A&M but only because they were in the North.

Maryland and Rutgers to the B1G. That damn sure wasn’t about good football.

UCLA-another RutgersMaryland

Hell, you could even throw Texas and USC in that group. Their football has been poor to mediocre most of the last decade. But the SEC/BIG said “we don’t care. We want your eyeballs.”

In conclusion, I just don’t see significant difference in the four in their ability to bring eyeballs on a long term basis. All four would bring temporary increase in viewership with a good run like TCU did. I don’t see conferences being interested in temporary bumps.

I don’t think the past actions by the Big 2 in adding teams makes my stance a straw man. If you do then you are disregarding what has happened since conference realignment began. I wish conference realignment had been about quality football. If it had, I’d agree with you totally.

 

[CoalTrain]

I miss watching VT/Pitt/WVU Duke it out for conference bragging rights, perhaps if ACC does finally implode we can see it in conference again.

ACC swung and missed bad not adding WVU when it had the chance… several times actually. Pitt, VT, Syracuse, Maryland (when they were in the ACC) all traditional rivalries (entertaining/interesting watches regardless of records ect.) plus newer one with Louisville and no doubter brand new ones with UVA and one or more on the NC schools (tons of transplant WV folks in that state). They used the whole “academic” argument against WVU but then jumped up and added Louisville which blew that argument out of the water.

Would it have changed the situation now with the top brands leaving town? No, but the conference would have had more interesting and potentially important games which could at one point have generated a LITTLE more tv money and a WHOLE lot more entertainment for the CFB but as we’ve all learned, the CFB fan is pretty far down their list of priorities when it comes to the realignment moves.

 

[duckboy33]

Okay, let’s get back to “good faith” which was what I thought I was doing in asking questions regarding why you see Utah as “more valuable” than the other three. (BTW, using terms like “straw man” isn’t good faith so that goes both ways.)

I agree totally with your first sentence in the second paragraph. And I agree with your sentence right after that because facts prove Utah has played better football than the other three have for quite a while. I have no idea about the levels of commitment to football but I would assume Utah is better in that area as well.

Where we disagree is on the “higher on the board” part. And I only say that because recent history shows conferences don’t care as much about recent football success and/or commitment as they do about how much viewership you can bring them….whether you’ve been played good football or not. And the landscape is full of facts in that area just like the fact that Utah has been better in recent years. I know you know these examples but they represent why I disagree.

A&M - they were middle of the road in Bg 12 play for years prior to and during the SEC move. But the SEC wanted the eyeballs (aka $$$) they would bring.

Mizzou was a little better than A&M but only because they were in the North.

Maryland and Rutgers to the B1G. That damn sure wasn’t about good football.

UCLA-another RutgersMaryland

Hell, you could even throw Texas and USC in that group. Their football has been poor to mediocre most of the last decade. But the SEC/BIG said “we don’t care. We want your eyeballs.”

In conclusion, I just don’t see significant difference in the four in their ability to bring eyeballs on a long term basis. All four would bring temporary increase in viewership with a good run like TCU did. I don’t see conferences being interested in temporary bumps.

I don’t think the past actions by the Big 2 in adding teams makes my stance a straw man. If you do then you are disregarding what has happened since conference realignment began. I wish conference realignment had been about quality football. If it had, I’d agree with you totally.

You're trying to simplify the issue too much. You asked why Utah would be higher on the board than others. You noted that ASU, Zona, and CU check a lot of the same boxes that Utah does. I agree. The tiebreaker and the reason Utah is higher on that list, is because they're committed to winning at a much more serious level. It doesn't mean all those factors don't matter now. But yes, football success is a factor in conference realignment. It's not the only factor, as you pointed out, but it is a factor. Of course some bigger brands can get by with not being as good because they draw eyeballs but that doesn't apply to Arizona, ASU or CU.

Even in your conclusion you acknowledge this. "All four would bring temporary increase in viewership with a good run like TCU did." But take the next step, which one of those 4 is the most likely to go on that kind of run? It's 100% Utah. This isn't a proposition where all the schools have an equal chance of that happening.

 

[Top Cat]

Not to advocate believing anything found on reddit but this is interesting....



TL;DR...

Option A: The ACC has resumed talks with Utah in the hopes that Arizona and Arizona State will come back into play. This was their original desire.... partner Cal, Stanford, Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State with each other in a western division. Oregon State and Washington State are picked up by the Big XII

Option B: The ACC has resumed talks with Utah under the assumption that the new division will be Cal, Stanford, Utah, Oregon State, and Washington State. This move has been made easier by the Pac-12's recent agreements with CW and FOX/CBS.

Option C: Only Utah is in play for membership.

I would like to sell whoever thinks that Utah would willingly bail to the ACC a bridge.

 

[Top Cat]

All of this is totally the Big12’s fault. They allowed Texas and Oklahoma to create a two tier system and piss off Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and aTm.

If they had an equal revenue share like the SEC and the B1G (used to have) and equal voting rights and Longhorn network then nobody leaves.

Two teams can’t carry a conference but Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and aTm would have been plenty to boast ratings. There would have been some big ratings games between those schools.

My bet is the PAC still implodes because of how terribly it was run and how they handled COVID but wouldn’t have been surprised if USC had reached out to the Big 12 as well at that point because their revenue package and travel would have been much better.

Anyone that says otherwise is mistaken.

It was never gonna be equal revenue sharing is the thing. It's pretty easy to see why too.

 

[Deep Creek]

You're trying to simplify the issue too much. You asked why Utah would be higher on the board than others. You noted that ASU, Zona, and CU check a lot of the same boxes that Utah does. I agree. The tiebreaker and the reason Utah is higher on that list, is because they're committed to winning at a much more serious level. It doesn't mean all those factors don't matter now. But yes, football success is a factor in conference realignment. It's not the only factor, as you pointed out, but it is a factor. Of course some bigger brands can get by with not being as good because they draw eyeballs but that doesn't apply to Arizona, ASU or CU.

Even in your conclusion you acknowledge this. "All four would bring temporary increase in viewership with a good run like TCU did." But take the next step, which one of those 4 is the most likely to go on that kind of run? It's 100% Utah. This isn't a proposition where all the schools have an equal chance of that happening.

It also doesn't apply to Utah or any similar school. I'm not hating on Utah. In fact, I felt for a stretch of years around 2010 that Utah, TCU and Boise were a hell of a lot better football teams than 60% of the P5 schools. But they didn't move the media needle.

We'll just agree to disagree because, outside their current football success, I don't see Utah have any more media value to the P2 than the other three. But you do and that's fine.

 

[TaikoTiger]

If Clemson wants to remain a national contender, they will need P2 level money in the future. They need to make that move and it appears that the school understands this and is actively working to make themselves available.

I understand why other fans hope they get stuck in the ACC because it will hurt them in recruiting or because they're afraid the ACC will be a diminished product if they leave. But it's silly to pretend that's what's best for Clemson.

You would think this would be common sense but some are real stickler on win % and playoff appearance banners

 

[TaikoTiger]

Mizzou, seriously? ATM? What have they won? I mean, if you want to be with the Mizzous and the ATMs in the world instead of winning NCs, good luck.

Are they not a better football program then what they were before joining?
Are they not getting better recruits?
Do they not have more money to pay for staff, recruiting budget and facilities?

Not sure how that is not working out.
If they think the move to the SEC was so bad, they are free to go back

 

[duckboy33]

It also doesn't apply to Utah or any similar school. I'm not hating on Utah. In fact, I felt for a stretch of years around 2010 that Utah, TCU and Boise were a hell of a lot better football teams than 60% of the P5 schools. But they didn't move the media needle.

We'll just agree to disagree because, outside their current football success, I don't see Utah have any more media value to the P2 than the other three. But you do and that's fine.

We can agree to disagree. But note that Utah and TCU did move into the P5 after their success in the 2000s. So obviously they moved the needle to some extent. Boise was hurt because it’s not a flagship school and it’s in a tiny market.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Are they not a better football program then what they were before joining?
Are they not getting better recruits?
Do they not have more money to pay for staff, recruiting budget and facilities?

Not sure how that is not working out.
If they think the move to the SEC was so bad, they are free to go back

Mizzou's record since joining the SEC:



They had one really good year recently. That's what you want?

ATM since joining the SEC:



Don't see how that's working out. Simply put, they get more money, they play a far tougher schedule than they would have.

Now do Colorado to the PAC, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers to the B1G. Show me one team that moved to another conference that suddenly became relevant.