UCF_rustbucket

22 hours ago, StDee said:

meh...reading the tea leaves this guy saw the incoming transfer DBs from Ohio St, USC and Ole Miss and decided to bolt. 

2024 College Football Transfer Portal

247SPORTS.COM

---

2024 College football Transfer Portal

 

Yup, he was highly rated coming in but is a little undersized and by far missed the most tackles and graded poorly by PFF. Likely was losing playing time had he stayed. 

12 minutes ago, Peatearpan said:

He must have assumed that PAC would overcome their odd west coast elitism to be proactive and expand.

Can you imagine if they snatched up TT, Ok State, Kansas; instead of imploding?

They had any of the Big 12 to choose from and they would have jumped. But that just would have shifted where some of the 2nd tier P4 teams coalesced. It'd be PAC centered instead of Big 12 centered. The B1G bound teams probably leave still but instead of OSU and WSU left out, it's Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, and WVU. 

Where the PAC really dropped the ball was over a decade a go when they were on the verge of adding Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Colorado to make a PAC16. With a core of USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Texas, Oklahoma, and TAMU they would have been a legitimate equal challenger to the B1G and SEC brand wise.

17 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

 

Aw heck yeah! Random gut feeling percentages.

There was one dude on the Texas Tech board a few years ago, righter after Texas and Oklahoma left, that would post updated percentage numbers for TT landing in the PAC or SEC. Some say he's still making up numbers to this day.

18 minutes ago, jmbull said:

I agree with you. They don’t have to give names but at least give us an idea as to where the money going or is it all just going to pay for the salaries of the collective staff? We couldn’t pay any of our players last year. Are any in our current squat being paid. My guess is Reid otherwise he would have left too.  Did he get paid after they tried to poach him?

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. 

2 hours ago, aroth said:

Imagine SMU agreeing to accept nothing and having to pay to get out to got to the B12. For having a bunch of rich alumni this sure would be a bad financial move. 

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.

21 hours ago, 94 Bull said:

This is the same guy who never showed at his signing day with Miami and just left them standing there. 

USF doesn't need a prima donna causing dissention on the team.

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.

3 hours ago, Cubanbull said:

Not entirely correct. Oklahoma and Texas never signed that 99 year membership. That was done with the new contract by the remaining members and the newcomers to stabilize the league and promising they weren’t going to leave. Utah got a special deal where they didn’t sign to that. How would that affect anyone outside of Utah trying to leave remains to be seen.

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.

5 hours ago, Cubanbull said:

Don’t think WV will be it.

First from what I heard ALL the B12 schools signed off on a long term GOR. I believe Utah was the only one that went in with a special note that said they didn’t give up those rights.

If you look at ACC after FSU/ Clemson leaves, is a more academic conference outside off Louisville, so I’m thinking If they keep that ESPN contract deal, Utah is the most likely to bail out.

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.

21 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

Interesting….

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.

10 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

Another way to say that a G5 team wouldn't have the ability to ever join the upper teir permanently.  Only G5 subject to this?  Would about the independent UConn?  

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. 

2 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

So no ability to elevate from G5?!  

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. 

12 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

I do believe USF will be included in this group if you have been paying attention to the investments….

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.

22 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

The good news regarding this thread is that we do not have to post any April Fools jokes as this thread pretty much is full of them…..

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

2 hours ago, Gismo said:

With the rise of streaming and decline of cable, this isn’t as straight forward as it was in the past. 
 

 

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.

15 hours ago, Jim Johnson said:

Yes. Miami does not have much of a fanbase outside of South(ern) Florida... USF would allow the ACC to get viewers in the Central Middle Florida that UM does not attract.  (FSU currently covers those markets for the ACC).

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.

1 hour ago, belgianbull said:

Verry true. San Diego State is slowly becoming an elite program.  Good football and great basketball. Add to that a top class OCS, and I think there is little doubt that they have moved up when it comes to future consideration in conference realignment.

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. 

2 hours ago, TallyBull said:

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.

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.

50 minutes ago, aroth said:

It’s hard not to laugh at the B12 supporters wishing death on the ACC. Are they really so dense that they think the P2 are done after destroying the ACC? If the ACC folds or gets relegated there will be the P2, the B12 alone in the middle cutting into P2 profits, and the G5. It’s not that hard to identify the next casualty. Adding a few ACC leftovers isn’t going to save them. 

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.

5 hours ago, Cat941 said:

 

 

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.

19 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

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. 

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.

1 minute ago, Outlaw said:

So he can transfer out to Iowa  to get more nil money than he was offered at bama at the end of the season. Now he transfers back to Bama with a bigger nil offer. So does he get to keep the nil money he has collected from Iowa or does he have to pay it back . The transfer portal and nil  madness without any clear rules and enforcement is pure madness .

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

1 hour ago, Rocky Style said:

He reminds me of these guys on Youtube that "predicted the 2008 crash" but predict a crash every year forever.

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

3 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Not knowing all the ever changing ins and outs of all this, would the ACC backfill their losses from the Big XII?

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.

21 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

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. 

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.

7 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

I just don't see it. even if they lose top few teams, The ACC is academically heads and shoulders above the big 12 or reconstituted pac 2. I think this still actually matters to some schools.

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.