UCF_rustbucket

Something similar to how non profits are evaluated to see which are really helping the cause and which are lining their own pockets. Just a high level breakdown ofb% to operational costs (staff and any events they put on to attract more donors) vs % to NIL.

What would massively suck for them is if the ACC falls apart before they even get ACC tv payout. But I think some version of the ACC will survive. If I'm the Big 12 though and ACC teams are calling, SMU isn't one I'm taking. They're still fresh from the G5 world. Obviously I have some bias as a UCF fan, but I don't think SMU did anything impressive on the field like the 4 G5 that the Big 12 took. They've been okay to good in the last 5 years and only just won their first conference title since they got hit with the death penalty. They bought their way in.

The talent is there but once a player consistently shows himself to be a diva, strong chance they won't reach their full potential. We just had Goldie Lawrence enter the portal and he fit that bill. Was committed to us, flipped and signed with FSU, left them after a year to come back to us, left us after just spring ball. Word is that he had an attitude and was always late to meetings and practices. Some guys are used to being better than everyone with little effort that they don't make the right adjustments when they move up to college ball.

Not true at all. The 99 year membership portion was added back in 2012, with both Texas and Oklahoma signing onto it. https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/03/big-12-sec-texas-longhorns-oklahoma-sooners-split-explainer "There are two key issues in any early exit from Texas and Oklahoma: The grant of rights/TV contract: The two schools are contractually bound to the league through the end of the 2024–25 academic year via what is termed a grant of rights, which coincides with the league’s television deal with ESPN and Fox. The 99-year agreement: In 2012, the Big 12 schools entered into a 99-year agreement to remain together, a deal that comes with an exit fee of two years’ worth of gross revenue, or about $80 million each." All this to say, the 99 year membership clause isn't a scary insurmountable obstacle to leaving and Utah not having it isn't some smoking gun.

The 99 year membership thing causes a lot of confusion but it's different from the GOR. All teams including Utah will have signed the same GOR that runs through the 2030-31 athletic season. The membership length is just some legalese to put a length instead of infinite period of time for conference membership. Note that Oklahoma and Texas also had signed onto the same 99 year membership clause but it was the GOR that was the sticking point that resulted in them leaving only 1 year before the end of the GOR. It's not really a barrier but any teams wanting to leave the Big 12 will have to wait until 2031, negotiate to shave a little bit off of that like OU/UT, or fight in court like FSU and Clemson.

OSU hopium lol Oregon State and Wazzu aren't a cultural fit with the ACC. Why go for 2 rural Pacific NW schools when you have plenty of eastern, urban, strong academic schools like USF and UConn available. Heck, I'd even take Memphis over those 2 because they're not really worthy of growing the western wing of the ACC.

Correct. Which isn't surprising given how the G5 was shafted with the CFP payout for the next contract. Only G5 subject to this. But I wouldn't worry about it, because the SEC and B1G would become weaker in this proposed format compared to the power they've amassed in their current form. Unless they get guaranteed bigger payouts of some sort, the B1G has no reason to lose PSU, USC, Oregon, etc and same with the SEC and losing Texas and Oklahoma. You can usually see the fingerprints of the architect. And in this case I think it's WVU and Syracuse and some others. Aka P5 bubble teams that want to lock in their status as equal to the blue bloods while also locking out the G5 from catching them.

Not permanently. 10 G5 teams will play with the P5, but still be open to being demoted and traded for a different G5 based on performance. European soccer style.

In the version proposed here (which is still very preliminary and I don't think the B1G and SEC want this), USF would be included but vulnerable to being relegated to the 2nd tier. This proposal would split the 130 FBS teams to 80 teams in the upper league and 50 in the lower league. For the 80 in the upper, 70 are permanent spots for the P5. They included the 68 teams that were P5 in the 23 football season, so OSU and WSU included. Plus ND and SMU to get to 70. These 70 teams would be split into 7 10-team divisions/conferences. There would be an 8th 10 team division that is essentially the best of the G5. But the downside to being part of that division is that teams will be promoted from and relegated to the 50 team 2nd tier league based on performance. But only that league, the other 70 are permanently tier 1. But this is all super early concepts which are fun but don't benefit the B1G and SEC more than their current setup, so I don't see it happening.

If you want jokes I can always find some Swaim tweets...

For sure. Some of the legacy carriage fees *could* still apply but for how long? As people cut cable and move to streaming, we start to measure the actual interest vs trying to exploit a loophole. Maryland and Rutgers very lucky they got into the P2 when they did.

I don't think the question was about actual viewers but rather what do the media and distribution partners count as the teams respective markets for carriage fees of a conference network on cable customers. It's why the B1G took Maryland and Rutgers. Not because those two teams have expansive fan bases they were hoping to draw in, but rather the fact that they are in the DC and NYC markets respectively means the B1G could add 2 new large markets and the carriage fees for all those customers. Regardless how many actually watch or care about B1G sports. If ESPN and their cable partners count FL as one whole marker, then USF won't add anything new. But if the Miami and Tampa markets and customers are counted separately, then yes. I'm leaning towards the latter but don't know for sure.

I second this. It's SDSU moreso than UConn I'd root against if I were y'all. They're more well rounded. If UConn wins it all yes it's great for them, but does it really change who UConn is? They're a known basketball powerhouse that is the current defending champions. Would add another feather to their cap but doesn't change their football weaknesses that have kept them on the bubble but never quite in over the last few realignment cycles.

It's just Twitter bros being Twitter bros. If Duke were to end up in the Big 12, it'd be for the same reason as the 4 corner schools. Essentially lateral money but their current conference took so many hits that it was bound to reduce its earnings. Survival is more important than aligning academics, that's when it goes out the window. But imo this only happens if it gets to that point. Duke (or Pitt, Louisville, etc) won't actively seek this out if the ACC after the first round of departures is still stable. My money is that it'll hold. Could still lose 1 or 2 beyond FSU, Clemson, and UNC. But that still leaves enough solid teams to either stay as is or backfill with 2 or so G5. What happened to the PAC 12 was a perfect storm of incompetence where multiple bad decisions in past years and a few in their final year caught up all at once.

It'll be a different sort of casualty though. I don't see anyone else the P2 would want after the raid the ACC. So a bulked up Big 12 would be stable in that regard. But there's also nothing that version of the Big 12 can do to catch up to the P2 as they further pull away and only give them slightly better scraps than they give the G5.

This could be deciphered a few ways. One is exactly how it sounds. No one has an offer, likely because money is still right at the moment with the sports networks. The other way is that there's nothing official or on the record. The P2 could have had some back channel talks but would want to avoid doing anything that could them in legal trouble for interference. But they still would somehow give an under the table "wink wink nudge nudge" that there's a spot once they figure out how to leave the ACC.

Kneejerk reaction whenever a conference is vulnerable during realignment, everyone starts speculating and writing the obituary for it and finding theoretical homes for all the teams. They did it for the Big 12 but they survived. They did it for the PAC 12 and they had multiple opportunities to live but fumbled it badly and actually died.

There's usually terms to the NIL money so he probably got to keep very little to none of the Iowa money.

Make one different, outlandish prediction every day and you'll be right eventually! Then take credit due to your "sources". Easy win.

Can't see it happening. It's the Big 12 vs PAC 12 drama part 2. The reason the PAC was still better at the top even after USC and UCLA left was because of Oregon and Washington. But those were the schools that wanted to leave the most. Same thing applies here. The schools keeping the ACC above the Big 12 are the ones that want out, very loudly. Once that's gone there's no reason for a Big 12 team to spend money for a move to a lateral at best, slight downgrade at worst. PAC fans also made the same argument that they have better academics and major metros, which is true, but that's not what the TV deals pay for. ACC's options will either be stand still or pluck from the G5 just like the Big 12 had to do after getting raided.

Great point. Because if they lost 4 to the P2 they're now at 13 and there could be panic that if they don't stabilize quick enough, they'll lose another 4 to the Big 12 just like the PAC did.

The PAC 2 also has a much bigger problem than trying to compete academically with the ACC. Right now it barely exists and there's not much incentive for anyone other than the MWC teams to really give it consideration. And in that case it's mostly for a full merger.

1. Agreed, the 3 western teams are too far and not good enough adds for being that far. Memphis I'd give dark horse chances depending on how many the ACC needs to add. 2. 1:1 probably makes sense though I wonder if it kicks in right away or if they're okay getting a little smaller. Meaning if they only lose FSU and Clemson to go down to 15 football members, they could stand pat potentially instead of adding to get back to 17. But if they start losing beyond that then they'll add. 3. Watered down P4 > G5 and it's not even close. The Big 12 and ACC CFP payments alone are bigger than the total payout for the AAC (TV + CFP+ bowls + NCAA credits).

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1770112929469260128?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1770112929469260128|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=

You could definitely see at least the offense was headed the right way with some of the pieces he brought in. But man. The defense was so bad that y'all lost a bunch of games in 2022 where the offense did enough to win/compete if only the defense weren't Charmin soft.