UCF_rustbucket

33 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Automatic inclusion of the ACC network in states they have a presence, may as well lock down all of the largest states 

This is the answer. Also the reason why the Big 12 doesn't automatically have anything to gain by adding the Bay Area schools. There's no Big 12 conference network so can't cheese the system the way the B1G did with Rutgers and Maryland. Still seems like a bad idea so we'll see if SMU actually happens. 

19 minutes ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

Conference (avg) payouts in 2022 - 

B1G: $58.8MM

SEC: $49.9MM

B12: ~$43MM

ACC: $39.4MM

PAC: $37MM

The only way the B12 is poaching ACC schools is if two things happen - 1. FOX agrees to pro-rata for each of the schools. Going to 18/20 would mean an extra $85/$170MM per year in fees. And 2. The next B12 tv contract is at the very least, on par with the current deal, and probably needs to be significantly more payout per school. USCLA/OUT/OUW/FSU/CLEM aren't leaving their conferences over a $10-$20MM difference in yearly TV payouts, they are leaving for $30-40MM difference (B1G/SEC conference payouts projected at $70-80MM starting in 2024). A team moving from ACC -> B12 will be doing so for significantly less difference, increase their travel expense, and be downgrading academic relationships (even with addition of Utah/Zona/ASU/Colorado). If a team from the ACC joins the B12, it will not be until the B12 negotiates their next TV contract in 2030ish. A lot can change in the next 6-7 years. 

Great breakdown. Agreed on all points. Can't see the next Big 12 deal bring miles ahead of the ACC that it would prompt schools to jump.

I see it playing out more like the PAC 12 death. The top 4-6 ACC schools get poached by the Power 2, capping what the next ACC deal will be without them. The next middle batch, your Louisville and Pitt type schools will join the Big 12 just like the 4 corners did once it was the best option left. But otherwise their preference was to stay with their original conference.

19 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

I believe it is a minimum of $7 million. UCF reported receiving $8.8 million this past year. I'm not certain how the $17 million in entry fees for the incoming teams and the $54 million in exit fees for UCF/Houston/Cincy will be divided. 

By comparison, the MWC is the next closest G5 conference and their teams make at least $4 million annually. 

For the exit fees of any conference, I think usually the legacy members will keep all of it. If not all of it, a large majority of it and only a small share to the new members that are replacing the outgoing teams. 

That $8.8M is right. The AAC TV deal will average $7M over it's duration but don't think it's actually hit that amount yet. But the $8.8M payout also includes bowl, CFP, and NCAA credits money.

21 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

I don’t know. This dude seems to think it will. 

The OSU and WSU fans also believed everything was fine and that anything negative was just Big 12 propaganda until the end. 

24 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

From your experience what is more important to future recruits NIL money or an OCS ? I know the university can only provide one.

Specifically recruits, I'd lean a little more towards NIL directly. But an OCS can build the foundation for a strong fan base which in the future will be your NIL donors.

3 minutes ago, DontPushMe said:

Why are you here?

Lol you can down vote me, doesn't make my comment incorrect.

15 minutes ago, Bear said:

ACC would have to open up their GoR... and with that FSU and Clemson would leave. 

They may probably sit this one out. 

Either way, USF has the opportunity to make itself a prime target. We just need to win (and build that **** stadium).

That's actually just a myth floating on Twitter and online forums from fans of teams that want it to be true. Adding new teams does not open up the GOR. The new teams just sign onto the existing terms.

See the Big 12: once Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving, the Big 12 invited 4 new teams. That didn't let them out of the GOR early. We've now even reached the point where the 4 new teams have joined alongside Oklahoma and Texas, still didn't let them out early. 

13 minutes ago, Cubanbull said:

We need to see how the PAC adds after this but with four left, they must expand. 
if they go something like this

WEST: Washington State,Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, SDSU, Colorado State, Air Force

EAST: SMU, Rice, Memphis, Tulane, USF, Navy/ Wichita State, UAB

that would be attractive, limit travel west and still put the league as top 5, an improvement on where we are.

 

It's a solid league. The problem is that the PAC needs teams in 2024, so any MWC adds will have to start with that $34M fee and try to negotiate it down. The AAC teams would have to pay at least the $18M we paid while giving the AAC significantly less notice. All of this to earn maybe $10M to $15M a year.

1 minute ago, Cubanbull said:

Well that leaves FSU and Clemson as the last two big gets outside of BigTen and SEC. I’m not counting Notre Dame. So that P2 split could be coming sooner than most of us thought.

So it looks like for USF it might be a depleted ACC or PAC. Most likely the first. But it depends on who would be left there if FSU and Clemson leave.

 

Most likely the ACC. The PAC is too depleted to be worth a cross country membership.

3 minutes ago, TallyBull said:

Unlikely the Pac-12 merges with MWC IMHO. More likely to merge with ACC, but the timing would have to be right. If the ACC stabilizes, I'd expect the Pac-12 to do the smart thing and become a national conference, like the Big 12. 

Then again, despite the eggheads at Stanford and Cal, I have zero confidence that any kind of bold or strategically smart vision will come out of this experience.

Baring any last minute surprises, OrWa leaving all but guarantees the AZ schools and Utah to the Big 12, leaving only a PAC 4. Stanford and Cal are ACC type schools, Oregon State and WSU? Not so much. Those are MWC schools.

1 minute ago, Outlaw said:

Exactly and if the two Arizona schools want to follow them, the pac 12 still has their best programs left Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Washington State and Oregon State have had some good seasons in the last 5 years.

Football wise, the Big 12 got a meh batch. But Arizona first the basketball culture, Colorado is a founding Big 8/12 member, Utah and ASU fit the geography. Utah is great at football, the other 3 not so much but Arizona and Colorado show positive recruiting signs. But it's more about the message in destabilizing your competition and securing your place as a P5(4?). 

8 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

Who would sign a GOR deal seeing how FSU and Clemson want to leave the ACC  because of it but cant..

I don't think it'll stop GORs from being signed altogether, but just none with the crazy length that the ACC went for. All the deals done recently (and their corresponding GOR) are in the 5-6 year range. 

Just now, Cat941 said:

What a laugh!   This is ridiculous.  Media with conflicting reports about teams coming and going, posted within hours.   Nobody knows.   

I'm being told now that each conference commissioner will be allowed to pick 2 names out of a hat and invite those schools.

2 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

sorry but going to arizona and colorado is not the same. you are completely on an island now with your closest opponent being houston(??) at 1000 miles away.

I know these athletic directors couldn't care less about the students. only the $$$

I have a buddy whose son played baseball for an ACC school and had to get a jock degree because he couldn't keep up with his classes for a finance degree with all of the travel, etc. that's a conference that geographically makes sense.In retrospect he wishes he never encouraged him to play.

The Texas/OK/KS corridor is one UCF would already have to travel to in the AAC. Adding 3 trips (BYU, AZ, CU) that are an hour to an hour and a half longer isn't back breaking. Especially since some of the smaller sports do a meet at a single location and not road/home games everywhere. 

Your buddy's son had all that travel but we're not comparing student athletes vs regular students, we're comparing the travel schedule in the AAC vs the Big 12. Again, the AAC is already spread out and has half the conference in the same part of the country that the Big 12 does. So not a lot changes. 

1 minute ago, Gatorbull325 said:

Arizona is out the door and Arizona State will probably follow. SMU offers the Texas market and helps keep a foothold in Texas Recruiting. Boise State and SDSU will offer another competitive football team. Utah State, CSU, and Fresno State have been competitive teams that would take advantage of a P5 boost in status. In the end, if you win games, you will get more revenue. Big 12 is adding a bunch of bad and mid-successful teams. 

The rumblings are strong this morning that the PAC is making one final united push. ASU doesn't want to go to the Big 12 so either both stay, or there's a real chance they split and Arizona goes it alone and the Big 12 stops at 14.

2 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

you went to texas and ou for one off football games. once a year

not for  soccer, volleyball etc where you will travel several times per year

but heck who cares about the students actually attending classes and getting an education anyway.....

We've been in all sports leagues since 2005, so yes we actually did go to Texas and Oklahoma and even Kansas with Wichita State for the smaller sports. 

Let's not exaggerate. Going to Colorado or Arizona isn't going to take that much more time than the western and northern fringes of the AAC since we're already in the southeastern most state.

10 minutes ago, John Lewis said:

Let's say they add UConn. How long before UConn and UCF begin to complain, and rightfully so, about how many trips they have to take to the Mountain Time Zone for all of their sports?

I can't speak for UCF, but to me it's not a huge deal because we've been going as far as Texas and Oklahoma for about 20 years with a fraction of the conference revenue and prestige. The only time we've likely had close trips was before we joined football playing conferences and had our non football sports in places like the Atlantic Sun. As an FBS school we've always been far from everyone else. Before the AAC and USF, I think UAB was our closest geographic opponent.

25 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

That is what I was thinking too. Seeing the WSU crying to the media how tv money is destroying college football is comical. USF already has been through it with the big east falling. I don’t think USF has recovered yet from that. Hopefully they see what is all going on and get rejuvenated and start kicking ass like they did during the Leavitt days

Sucks for them. Over a hundred years of either the PAC or it's predecessor the PCC. But thems the breaks. Got to ride along for a good while. The bottom tier teams in the B1G and SEC are good for a while but not forever.

12 minutes ago, michibull said:

This would be best for USF’s interest. If there was a PAC/ACC agreement, I think that would kill our chances of getting into a P5; but, a PAC/MWC is still a weak conference (and a full number of teams) and the ACC could still lose FSU/Clemson and that would open the door for us to get in. 

This is definitely the best path. Because an ACC PAC merger means they're already insulated for future losses and won't need to add G5 later on. Still don't think you get your shot until the early 2030s, but I can't imagine anyone besides UConn being right at the top of their list.

17 minutes ago, Triple B said:

The hell you say .....

Ancient history I should have said Lmao old money SWC dreams. Even though they haven't won a thing since the death penalty.

17 minutes ago, Gat-Rat Bull said:

Anyone know if other AAC fan message boards have a realignment thread like this one? It'd be interesting to see what our conference mates are saying about their chances to move up.

SMU does. They're accepting the situation now but were pretty entitled thinking they deserved a spot purely due to history.

1 minute ago, Bull94 said:

insane. they will be paying almost as much to leave a conference that we will be paying for a stadium.

Oh and their payouts after subtracting $30m each year won't be much different than what they are currently getting. they go to the SEC (especially the west) and they are nothing more than a middle of the road program having to compete on much lower revenues.

I'm still not convinced they have an actual way out. This feels like a bluff. We'll see come August 15 but they seem full of hot air and just want to make noise.

3 hours ago, 79 Bull said:

Anyone think we may be headed for this...

5 20 team conferences, so 100 teams which means that 33 G5 teams are left out in the no dough cold initially.  12 team NC playoff for 5 champs plus 7 next highest ranked teams with no more than 4 teams from a single conference.  The 5th conference could actually be a relegation situation like soccer.  4 teams are demoted each year and 4 teams are promoted from the 33 teams based on some performance formula for the last 2 years.

Within each conference would be 4 5 team pods where each year you play the other 4 in your pod plus rotate the other 3 pods (every 3 years) so you play 9 conference games and 3 OOC every year.  The top 2 highest ranked teams that win their pod are in that conference's championship game.  Bowl structure, playoff and NY6 would remain virtually the same.

Just thinking out load.

5 x 20 is too clunky to work. The G5 conferences can't get bloated the same way the P5 can, especially if they're also geographically stretched. It was one of the reasons the 16 team WAC collapsed and the MWC core broke away. 

2 minutes ago, Peatearpan said:

So.. UCF.

 

wait, p2. Nevermind

First of all, how dare you

3 hours ago, Bull Gooner said:

I'm sure this information is out there somewhere - but I wonder how many subscribers Apple TV picked up when Messi came to the MLS. (Apple is the "NFL Sunday Ticket" for MLS)

With everyone cutting the cord, it's not crazy to imagine more people having Apple TV than PAC12 Network. A very quick search says ~25M Apple TV subscribers which is ~7.5% of US households. I'd bet that's more than have the PAC12 Network.

So if PAC12 ties revenue to subscriptions, this might not be a bad deal. 

I guess we'll see what AZ does while we wait for details.

The problem with this is that it depends how the PAC content is sold. For MLS, it's a standalone subscription not included with the base Apple TV. Those that do have Apple TV base package can get MLS at a discount, but it's still an extra. So a new PAC package would start from scratch just like the MLS one, which supposedly has a little over a million subscribers per one report.