Jump to content

TallyBull

Member
  • Posts

    3,681
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by TallyBull

  1. He does, although it hasn't translated to an ACC invitation - at least, not yet. Connections can only do so much... a vote by member institutions is required.
  2. Miami is just one vote and I'm not sure it has much political pull with the ACC's other members. In fact, if Miami did make a stink about it, I could see the other ACC members voting to add USF just to spite them. It was a bigger stretch for the ACC to invite Cal, Stanford, and SMU to the ACC - which FSU opposed as much as I'd expect Miami to oppose USF, if not more so - and we see how that vote went. The ACC could lock down the two largest media markets in Florida, at a time when keeping as strong a media deal as possible is key. USF is the logical add and I'd expect Miami to go along with it once it realizes it doesn't have the votes to keep USF out. EDIT: How we feel about FAU didn't manage to keep FAU out of the AAC either (sadly).
  3. Even if Cal and Stanford stick with the ACC long-term (I have my doubts), that doesn't mean the ACC's other members will vote to add Pacific Northwest schools that nobody else wanted, just because they used to be in an auto-bid conference. I'd anticipate a much more modest move westward with bigger media market impacts (maybe paring SDSU with Cal and Stanford and Tulane with SMU), thereby strategically accommodating Cal, Stanford, and SMU somewhat, and adding USF (to keep two AAU schools in always-booming Florida) and UConn (to ensure the ACC remains a significant BB conference after losing UNC and Virginia) to fill things out on the east coast. The ACC currently has 17 football schools plus ND. Rumors suggest that the ACC will likely lose 4 football schools (FSU, Clemson, UNC, and Virginia). Seems to me they'll add USF, UConn, and Tulane, and *maybe* SDSU to get back to 17. I think the ACC is likely to remain primarily an east-coast conference, in the same way the B1G will remain primarily a mid-western conference notwithstanding its additions of Oregon, USC, and UCLA. I also think that ND will stick around; they value independence more than any affiliation with the four schools rumored to be leaving. Just my two cents.
  4. I'm far from an expert on realignment. I'm intrigued but don't keep up with it as closely as others. That said, to understand realignment, I think you have to understand primarily two things: (1) how much money a university is bringing in and (2) how does it compare academically to its fellow conference members. Currently, I'm not sure how Duke ends up with more money in the Big 12, provided it enjoys a portion of any large exit fee/GoR settlement from departing members, and provided the conference TV and CFP money ends up being similar to what the Big 12 gets. And academically, Duke doesn't fit in with the (mostly) rabble in the Big 12. Nothing is impossible, but all signs point to Duke staying with Cal, Stanford, ND (at least, for now), Georgia Tech, and other AAU institutions (Miami, possibly USF later). Note that for FSU and Clemson, they don't necessarily see things this way. They care less about academics and more about money/access, which seems to be driving their current attempts to get out of the ACC. In fact, that's been their frustration all along - they care more about athletic success than the other denizens of the ACC, but all of the other teams benefit financially from them. But I suspect the president at Duke is more concerned about academics and fielding a strong basketball team and good, but not necessarily great, other teams. Again, nothing is impossible, but that's my take on the Duke rumors.
  5. Posting this because there are a lot of people on this board and on X that seem to put a lot of stock into this anonymous account. I also find his constant P2 triumphalism a bit grating.
  6. My understanding is that there will be a club area just like at RJS. I like to be outside, even if it's hot (sunblock, hats, and sunglasses are helpful), but it's nice to have a retreat to AC if you need it! And I think we'll have one, although it may not be quite as fancy as at RJS.
  7. I think the problem is the "X.com" portion of the link. For whatever reason TheBullspen.com won't embed X.com links the way it embeds Twitter.com links. My work-around (there may be others): Click on the bottom-right corner of the post (specifically the u-shaped bracket with the arrow pointing up). Click "Share via." Click "Open in Safari." Copy and paste the link from the URL window (it should start with "Twitter.com," not "X.com"). Embed the URL starting with "Twitter.com" into your TheBullspen.com post. Works for me. I'm not particularly tech-savvy, so there may be other/better ways to do this.
  8. Unless the ACC completely dissolves I don’t understand why UM would move to the Big 12 over just staying in the ACC. But what do I know.
  9. Agree 100% and I strongly suspect this is the anticipated end game. But how soon do they get there?
  10. And you should appreciate that voting to spend money is about as good an endorsement for an idea as you'll ever get from anyone, including from board members.
  11. Maybe, and that would be unfortunate, because I'd much rather be in the ACC than the Big 12. That said, if the ACC is ruled out and the Big 12 comes calling...
  12. Funny, because I'm a lawyer who's been to literally dozens of board meetings in my career. I think I've been to enough.
  13. Not trying to shut down discussion here at all. But there will always be stadium detractors. @puc86 is the loyal opposition on that issue, but he's also very much in the minority, as evidenced by the actions of our administration and Board of Trustees (people who matter), as well as most of our fans.
  14. I think this is the best possible result for USF. UNC and Virginia end up in the B1G, and FSU and Clemson end up in the SEC. Everyone else stays, they tack on UConn and USF (maybe also Tulane?), and they leave a little room for potential Big 12 poaching down the road (Utah, Kansas). On a separate note, this could all happen very quickly. If FSU, Clemson, UNC, and Virginia all leave via settlement, the ACC needs to be on the horn to add back up to 16-17 at basically the same time to keep the ESPN contract, assuming that contract isn't modified at some point.
  15. True but that assumes they're getting the upside they anticipated getting in the ACC (money, CFP access, prestige, etc.). If, however, the ACC takes a step or two back due to losing significant teams, I think going back to a reconstituted Pac-12 is more likely long-term than staying in the ACC (with or without those schools). At some point Cal and Stanford will just have to suck it up. They have no long-term future in a watered-down east coast league. Might as well rebuild a watered-down west coast league, or join the Big 12 in protest, and save the travel headaches.
  16. Definitely possible but I think it's unlikely they lose only two. I think they'll lose however many schools have (under the table) P2 invites. I'm thinking some combination of FSU, Clemson, UNC, and Virginia get the call to P2 eventually and the ACC won't want to risk dipping below 15 teams at any point.
  17. My thoughts FWIW (not much): 1. ACC is highly unlikely to ever take WSU, OSU, or Boise. Or Memphis. Just not enough bang for the buck from a media rights perspective - even for the Big 12. Plus, I don't think the ACC really wants to expand west. Adding Cal, Stanford, and SMU was a concession to ND, which will soon split for the B1G. I think those schools eventually realize that if they're not in the P2, they're better off reconstituting the Pac-12 with WSU, OSU, and a few other additions like SDSU, Boise, and Memphis, than remaining in the ACC. 2. First three ACC adds, in order, would be UConn, USF, and Tulane. I think they probably only replace 1:1 and plan for the future departures of Cal and Stanford. SMU could either stick around or join the reconstituted Pac-12 described above. 3. Being in the ACC is far better than our current situation. It will still be viewed as a big step up from where we are in terms of money and prestige. I think the ACC survives on a level comparable to the Big 12 and reconstituted Pac-12.
  18. This is all possible. If true, we will have truly found a gem in AAR. There are exceptions to every rule. Leavitt staying at USF instead of going to Alabama, for example. Dusty May staying at FAU after the NCAAT last year. Will CAAR and/or CAG be exceptions to the rule? Only time will tell, but I sure hope so. On the other hand, skeptics will say this line of reasoning is cute, but $$$ is all that matters. There's some truth to that, based on human nature and past experience. Also, media folks (especially those with strong biases or fans of blue-blood schools (trying to avoid referencing the whole made-up "power" nomenclature BS) will tell you in writing and on the radio that "it's only a matter of time" while they lick their chops, encouraging their schools to poach our good coaches. They aren't interested in the exceptions, because they want us/need us to be their developmental league - so they don't focus on or even mention that possibility. But I prefer to focus on the possibility CAAR and/or CAG will turn out to be exceptions, and leave the rest to ADMK (clearly he has earned our trust) and our big-money boosters to handle everything else. Not much more I can do about it really.
  19. FWIW some think that hiding his car keys or offering him free Publix subs for life might be more effective ways to keep him.
  20. Wasn’t sure I’d ever see it. What a day! Football is NEXT
  21. Fair enough. Not entirely true, but maybe mostly true? Agreed it’s a good deal, especially this season!
×
×
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.  Registration is free and reduces ads.