UCF_rustbucket

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. 

5 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

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. 

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=

4 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

One thing CJS did well was bring in some good players on the offense side imo. CAG had players to work with.

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.

16 hours ago, belgianbull said:

Maybe true, but if that's the case  than I don't believe Virginia Tech, NCST and Georgia tech make the cut either.

Good for USF since I would love to be in the same conference as those teams.

And by the way congrats to UCF on a good first year in the Big 12 . Wouldn't mind joining you guys in the Big 12 in the near future. I would be fine with either the Big 12 or ACC.

Much appreciated! And same to you all for a fantastic basketball season and a clear positive trend for football. To this day, no clue what CJS was doing because with little to no effort, a Florida team should be a 4 to 6 win team at worst.

Agreed on all the schools you listed. I'd love to be in a conference with them, but they wouldn't be up to standard for where the B1G and SEC are right now. IMO it's FSU and Clemson in tier 1, Miami, UVA, UNC in tier 2, and that's it. 

2 hours ago, belgianbull said:

There is a lot of talk about the ACC losing teams. But if i was the Big 12 I would be nervous as well. Kansas and Oklahoma State are probably in a better position vis a vie  most ACC teams.

Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see that. Kansas is an elite basketball program and OK State is a good/solid football program, but they don't stack up to what's already been taken. With football driving the bus they don't stack up to OU, UT, USC, UW, and Oregon. UCLA was the lucky market freebie but OK State won't be. The last meaningful chips on the board for the P2 are in the ACC. 

1 hour ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

...then Louisville and Pitt would be giving up nearly $100MM in exit fees owed to them, plus paying $200MM+ in exit fees to go to a conference... to make the same amount of money. 

It doesn't make sense. At all. And it never will unless somehow, someway, the ACC is completely dissolved and there are no penalties to any school for breaking their contracts. 

Let's say FSU settles with ACC for $200MM (exit fee at $130MM + 2 years @ $35MM/yr GOR media fees), and this precedent is established for all schools who decide to break the GOR and leave the ACC. "More than 4", let's say it's 6. That's $1.2B in fees if you think 6 teams can and will be willing to pay $200MM in exit fees. Now, 6 teams leaving would mean that buyout is split between either 9 or 12 members, depending on timing. That's $133MM per school at 9 school split, and $100MM per school at 12 school split. 

It all depends on how it goes down. If FSU/Clemson just agree to some overly expensive buyout, then I'm absolutely with you and there's 0 reason for the Pitt and Louisville type teams to turn around pay that expensive buyout for lateral money. This only becomes realistic if FSU finds some silver bullet to beat the GOR without a massive settlement payout. That would open the floodgates potentially. But even then, only potentially because the right situation and mix of teams could still be there to keep the ACC stable. Better to be M2 with the Big 12 than a glorified G5 like the PAC will be if/when it merges with the MWC.

2 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

sec and big 10 will break off.

it will destroy acc and big 12 tv money. networks won't want to pay ridiculous money for their streaming rights.they will be closer to g5 than they will p2.

And that's the big gun they have to our heads. Everyone can clearly see the separation already. But making it official with these contracts would be a big deal to mark the ACC and Big 12 as second tier. The threat here is accept this offer or we leave and you're worse off.

4 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

Basically all the ACC & Big 12 have to do is merged after they bring in USF. Once they do that they will be able to have 4 playoff spots. 2 for the Eastern & 2 for the Western divisions. Basically will be a P3 imo 

Unfortunately there's nothing either can really do to make the P2 be P3, but the name of the game is being relevant enough with schools that are important enough that you don't get left out of the party, even if you're sort of a second class citizen. Beats the situation the G5 would be in.

1 hour ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

Imagine thinking Kansas State is a more valuable property than Kansas. 

EDIT: Nobody is moving out of the SEC. 

That immediately made this a bad made up scenario for me lol. 

I remember right after Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving and there was all this speculation about the Big 12 being ripped apart, the 2 teams I saw most consistently being left out in the cold were Baylor and Kansas State. Their hopes were AAC at best. Because even Iowa State you can squint your eyes and make the B1G case. 

2 minutes ago, Peatearpan said:

So, if the conference is around for that long, all those schools have their spot in the conference guaranteed?

Something like that but it's more for contract purposes. Certain states have provisions on what the length of a contract can be. In theory, if you join a conference you assume you're a member either forever until you choose to leave. But a lot of places don't like contracts that go on in perpetuity. So you have to define a length for it. Others choose to do this by adding quirky lengths such as a "royal lives clause". Basically let's you deflect and say "oh this contract doesn't go on forever! Just until 21 years after the last descendants of the King of England pass away" which for practical purposes, means forever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause

21 minutes ago, Sk00b said:

I have a hard time believing any of those schools signed a 99 year agreement. Especially, in the expansion climate that is going on now. Seems a little far fetched without seeing actual proof of these contracts. 

It's real but it's not as big of a deal as the Twitterverse makes it out to be. It just gives a firm length for conference membership on paper. The real gate is now the Grant of Rights. Schools looking to move have either time it with the GOR like Texas, Oklahoma, and all the departing PAC schools or fight it legally like FSU is attempting. 

1 hour ago, Triple B said:

That was the last call up. There's no G5 with near the sustained success of the 4 who went, especially in this half of the country. Memphis probably comes the closest. If there are promotions in the next several years, it'll be driven by factors not as cut and dried as sustained on the field success.

If we want to nitpick, the G5 with the most sustained success both in the current crop of G5 and even compared to the 4 who left is Boise State. But that proves your point. On field success is part of it. The other parts of Boise's profile make them less attractive so now they've been passed up on a couple of different expansion rounds. Before the PAC died they weren't even a front runner over SMU.

2 hours ago, Outlaw said:

I mean Texas and Okalhoma were the big brands left. They are gone. Any B12 school would join the  3rd best conference in the  ACC conference,  the B1g with 2nd best  conference, and the best conference  the SEC if offered. 

The eastern Big 12 schools would love the ACC but only if it stays as is, which doesn't seem likely as FSU keeps whining so publicly. I think it'll take a lot more things aligning for the ACC to collapse like the PAC did. They have a much better chance for survival. But just like with the PAC, I can't see actual movement from the Big 12 to the ACC because the top schools that make it better than the Big 12 are trying to get out. And everyone knows it. 

1 hour ago, Cubanbull said:

The one part that I think the ACC leadership blew was not going after Utah, and the Arizona schools when Oregon and Washington bailed for B10

The ACC could have added Stanford,Cal, Utah,ASU, Arizona and Colorado would have probably join also and gone to 20 with a Western Wing and kept B12 from going West.

Would have been an interesting choice for the PAC schools. Academically, those 6 fit better with the ACC. Being with similar academic peers is a big deal to them. But geographically the Big 12 makes more sense for them with the exception of the 3 eastern schools.

14 minutes ago, aroth said:

We probably haven’t heard much about USF recently because nothing is happening or people actually in the know aren’t tweeting about high level negotiations or plans. 
 

Realistically, nothing is going to happen this round until the FSU v ACC lawsuit is resolved. Obviously that could take time, and it’s still in the early stages of fighting over which court will hear it. The top ACC teams appear to be the big catch this round of expansion, and we’re stuck waiting for a lifeline when the dust settles. 

Exactly this. There are very long stretches of nothing. The Twitter guys make it seem like wheels are always moving it the most recent realignment (2021-2023) was about a decade after the last meaningful round. 

You also gotta keep in mind that movement into a P4 is driven by the conference and their needs, not the invitees. USF won't be given an automatic invite as soon as they check off some boxes. Instead there has to be a need, almost always a vacancy, for the invite to come.

2 hours ago, hm101 said:

can someone explain what "conference" OSU/WSU are playing in this year? Will they be playoff eligible? 

Edit = so from what I can tell they are 2 members of the Pac 12 and playing non conference games in partnership with MWC. 

I still don't know if they can "win a conference championship" or need to earn autobids... anyone know this? 

Back in November, the CFP board passed a rule amendment that requires a conference to have 8 teams in order to be eligible for the conference champ autobids. 

This is separate from the NCAA's 2 year grace period allowing the PAC to exist as a conference despite being below the required 8, which is why some OSU/WSU were confused and thought they could still get an autobid from the PAC2. They won't be able to. They can go as an at large but that's a tall task with a mostly MWC schedule. 

2 hours ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

Stop listening to B12 fans on the ACC matters. Highly suggest some of us branch out to other websites to see the opinions of people of fans from the ACC/B1G/SEC on this matter. The only people posted in this thread are B12 fans - their views are not indicative of the actual market. 

Further, stop echoing it. Some of the stuff said here is crazy talk. 

To be fair, it's hard to do when a large chunk of the online Twitter expansionistas are Big 12 dudes. For some reason, a lot of them are WVU fans. Not sure if it's because there's nothing else to do there so they just stay online making up realignment scenarios lol

11 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

So they put out the 6-6 model (yay G5s have a chance!), then pretended they were killing the Pac (so they could cut to 5+7 with this idea that it's now P4) while also giving them a chance to maintain their status. Pac will take on the MW all under the P12 moniker, then we still have a P5 and now the G_ don't get a guaranteed seat and will inevitably still be left out of the dance.

If you think this is a wild conspiracy theory that used the "death" of the Pac to reduce the number of guaranteed conference winners while simultaneously gonna let the Pac keep their autonomy status, then you haven't been paying attention the last 15-20 years. They'll continue to shut out the current have nots, because they don't want them getting any of that sweet sweet CFP pie.

I don't think that's what's happening. They're not bringing the PAC along for the ride. They're not going to welcome the new MWC disguised as the PAC as a true P5 because that would mean 12 more teams getting P5 CFP payout and slicing their pie further. The new PAC MWC merger will be more MWC than PAC. It'll remain a G5 conference. 

They may get a boost the first few years since OSU and WSU have been built up with P5 resources. But after a couple of years being G5s, I can't see them being that much better than any other MWC team.

The move to 5+7 was about making sure the G5 weren't given a 2nd free slot. The powers that be only planned for 1 mercy spot.

On 2/18/2024 at 10:32 AM, BULLSHTR said:

Here, I can play this game.

If the Big 12 collapses, here is the ACC's wishlist (in order). Notice how not all of the teams are from the Big 12, because the ACC isn't interested in B12 teams and this is all completely made up.

1. WVU (100%)
2. USF (100%)
3. Cincinatti (100%)
4. Tulane (80%)
5. Kansas St (20%)
6. Kansas (20%)

Disclaimer: these numbers came directly from my ass.
 

 

I'm a little disappointed you didn't give any school a 69% chance.

39 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

Also, BRB, gonna go start some more rumors on Twitter (X).

Did all of you conspire with Torello to put @Bull Matrixout of a job? After all he's done to build this thread up!

7 minutes ago, Mike Stuben said:

I said extreme long shot. Just a possible, but unlikely, scenario. 

The SEC wanting USF is a possible but unlikely scenario. What I'm saying is that the SEC scrambling to add you to cut off the Big 12 is about as 0% as I can rate a scenario because the SEC will always be able to pick off the Big 12 on their own time.