macphisto

I think FSU hopes for the B1G. They'd rather go there than the SEC. The vibe I get from B1G school athletic depts is that they are in no rush, academics still matter, and strong basketball programs also matter. All of their targets are also not in the ACC. Kansas is actually one of the most appealing to them, especially if their football program's turnaround can hold and not be a flash in the pan. From my reads, their top two targets to add would actually be Kansas and UNC. But it seems like they don't expect anything to happen until the 2026 season at the earliest. They seem likely to want to stand pat for 2025. Things can certainly change before then and FSU could be considered, but I would be surprised to see any offers to join come in before the 2025 season and maybe not until it is over - so could be more 2027.

The Big Ten would have no interest in Clemson. They also are not AAU. UNC would be far more interesting to them. As for FSU, their big issue is they have no accredited PhD programs for engineering without partnering with FAMU. The Big Ten is massive into Engineering and USF does have a strong engineering focus. USF also has a superior medical school compared to FSU and the best Nursing School in the state for a public institution. I have long thought (and this is informed as I have a lot of Big Ten family members and work with Big Ten school's athletic departments for my job (and other conferences - USF, UF, Georgia Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, USC, UNC, Duke, Alabama, Auburn are just a few of my clients)) that if the Big Ten poaches the ACC, they will go for Duke, UNC, and Virginia. Duke and UNC would be the priorities. The Big Ten has football down. They would go for basketball and other sports. Have not been told this officially or anything, but that is the vibe I get. FSU certainly could force a change but I am not sure the Big Ten is interested. Logistics also matter and it is a heck of a lot easier to get to Tampa or even Orlando if UCF ever climbs the ladder. Another dark horse would be Tulane. They have the history. They have the academics. Less likely, but with their growth as a program, they are catching some eyes.

Concern was completely fair. Many wanted someone with a track record of actually being a head coach because Scott was so disappointing. Rolling the dice on another hot assistant concerned many. The thing that won me over quickly was how hard he came in and worked immediately. I was optimistic - though I was thinking just getting to 4 wins after having so many poor seasons would be where we'd hope to land. Going to a bowl and then blowing out a Power 5 team was not on my bingo card. CAG has shown he can coach. He can recruit. He also brings so much passion. The players love this guy. No it's time to take the next step.

I wish. We need more than one blowout bowl win - but now the door is open for the American champion to get into the playoff - and consistently being in that conversation may get the Big Ten's attention. AAU membership is a big deal and we've also got a larger student body.

The Big Ten will not have interest. FSU does not have the academic pedigree the Big Ten wants. That conference has already secured their big payday. FSU won't add more money to them.

This was preliminary and does not reflect a final design. Crazy overreation to a conceptual render that will change.

My guess is we'll get something along the lines of Snapdragon Stadium but just a bit more upscale and maybe with better expandability. That's not a Populous project, so Canvas Stadium for Colorado State might be an idea, but that was about $270M in 2023 dollars and Colorado is more expensive for construction. Or a smaller version of Minnesota's stadium that is expandable. I would guess a mix between Colorado State and Minnesota with ability to expand to 55-60K.

Alabama is not very good nor is Georgia. Michigan will beat Alabama. My guess is it will be Michigan vs Washington.

FSU offers no benefit to the B1G. SEC makes more sense. I doubt the MW/Pac stays west coast as a broader scope is more appealing.

But did they do that? USC and UCLA left because of money. Then the other schools had an offer but started looking around. USC and UCLA were the ones that initiated the convo with the B1G. As for 5+7, that can be easily adjusted. They are not going forward with it until they know what happens and it may only be for a single year. Apple wants football. A PAC conference can do a contract. Apple has a lot of cash on hand and can make things happen. Remember that Apple is also willing to put in a big bid for the CFP rights after 2025 - and they would want their favored conference with a seat. Apple may be willing to pay $2.5B a year for CFP rights and pay up to $500M a year for conference TV rights for all sports. Money talks and Apple is not just talking about CFP. They want a conference - and you can bet the B1G, SEC, etc are all listening when Apple tells them that a conference with a high seat at the table will likely increase their CFP bid.

The Big East did not have deals with the other major conferences. Basically the B1G, ACC, B12, and SEC are willing to continue to acknowledge the PAC as a peer if it reforms. It's basically a gentleman's agreement, but it has been communicated to Oregon State and Washington State. There is still the court matter because not every outgoing PAC-12 member wants this to happen due to the perception they can get even more money in liquidation of assets, but I've heard it is primarily Oregon, Washington, and the Arizona schools that care about that. As for Apple, they don't care which teams are in it as long as they are focused mostly on major metropolitan areas and give them programming from Noon to 10PM. Most other conferences are tied up in TV deals. They want to add college football to their MLS offerings. They have deep pockets and they believe very strongly that they can increase subscriptions via their marketing ability. Tulane, USF, San Jose State, Georgia State (believe it or not) are all part of a list of targets. UTSA, Rice, etc are all on the list as well. It may not happen and it certainly won't for 2024 - but they are discussing cancelling games and adjusting schedules with potential targets to give Oregon State and Washington State a full slate next year. Fully possible it might not happen, but working with a bunch of Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Big 12 schools directly, I hear things. And the buzz is that the intention is to reform that league. Sizing is not determined yet. Apple is involved in the discussions and willing to grease some wheels if needed because they don't have many other ways into broadcasting college sports, especially football, for a couple of years. I can tell you the MLS clubs I deal with have also heard Apple is vert aggressively pursuing a means to get college sports soon - and the MLS teams talk to Apple's broadcast side regularly.

Then why do schools like Ohio State, Georgia, Tennessee, etc that I work with say differently. I think they know better than you.

Should also note I work with a lot of the big players in college sports. They all believe Oregon State and Washington State will reform the conference in some way because they have massive incentive to do so based on bowl and CFP contract language and Apple still being very willing to spend, especially if the conference becomes more pan-American (which is the name they are considering if the courts clear them).

The PAC is retaining its status if it populates the conference by 2025. That's the deal and the CFP is limited in the changes it can make unless the PAC fails to fulfill this. If the CFP changes these rules then the Playoff may not happen as stated as they would be violating their agreement and be in breach of contract. Do you really think Washington State and Oregon State are fighting so hard for control just for asset retention? They know the language of the deal and you don't. They have incentive to reform the conference and have said as much. The AppleTV deal is still on the table if they can populate the conference valued at $25M per member.

They have zero interest in FSU. FSU had hopes they could get an offer this year and the B1G showed no interest. UNC and Duke would be their highest targets from the ACC. They would take USF before they take FSU. Part of the issue is FSU thinks it deserves a full share immediately. Any new joiner would likely need time to phase in. FSU really does not add to the TV appeal all that much. Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan are more of a TV draw in Florida than FSU is. FSU adds nothing and is not even AAU.

The value is it retains its Power 5 status. That means your conference winner gets in automatically. You don't have to compete with other G5 schools for the single guaranteed spot. That's why the MWC just dissolving and mostly joining is not unlikely at all. If a conference dissolves, exit fees go away.

I doubt that happens. Would be more likely the Mountain West would dissolve and join them. I believe the court ruling is coming soon. I doubt OSU or WSU are leaving. It's just a matter of how they handle adding someone. MW works geographically but there may be some more appealing teams in the AAC. USF increased their value and are in a good sized market. UNT, UTSA, and Rice are in three large Texas markets. Tulane is in New Orleans, is excellent academically and done well in football of late. Memphis has appeal in football and basketball. The largest question is how do schedules get filled next year. It may be possible to make some adjustments in MWC and AAC team schedules to cancel OOC games for next season and allow for a year notice before leaving if that happens to some teams but not all.

I doubt FSU gets a Big Ten invite. They would invite Miami, UNC, Duke, etc before FSU due to academics. USF has a better chance due to their AAU membership. Also not sure about getting out of the grant of rights deal. FSU will have a difficult time getting free from the ACC.

We got the bottom end of the conference this year. Looking at it, a healthy USF squad SHOULD beat UAB, FAU, UConn, Temple, UTSA, and UNC Charlotte. Memphis is the lone good quality team. Doesn't mean they won't stumble somewhere, but 9 wins is definitely possible and if they defeat Memphis, they may have a shot at playing in the AAC Championship. Don't want to get too far ahead. If they win the next three games going into Memphis then we can start thinking about it.

I am saying the Big Ten has no interest in FSU. They want better quality academic institutions and AAU membership has usually been a pre-requisite. With big names like USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc in the pipeline, market size means more. Rutgers, for instance, has much better TV ratings since joining as does Maryland. The Big Ten MAKES you attractive. There's an argument that UNC and Duke may be the most attractive to them in the ACC - academics and basketball pedigree and a growing market in the triangle. Miami brings academics - though the football is not to the level it has been. Brings a big market. Much depends USF's performance. With the AAU creds, new facilities, and winning - USF would become appealing in a few years. They need to win, though.

FSU is not going to the Big Ten. They have no interest. The SEC or Big 12 is their only hope. Miami would interest the Big Ten. Honestly, USF would too with facilities and a show of competitiveness because of the academics. I would say USF is far more appealing to the Big Ten than Clemson or FSU. UNC, Virginia, etc are a different story.

Disney is not selling ESPN. Iger has said as much. They are looking for strategic partners - and I could see Apple taking an interest if that means they can get more sports programming on Apple TV+. They did not win the Sunday Ticket bid and are seeing good success with MLS. That said, the deal with the PAC may have made them less interested in a partnership with ESPN. This could get fascinating if the PAC does add USF and others - ESPN may enter the fray to pay more in the hope that it will make Apple more likely to invest money as a strategic partner. ESPN is valued at over $50B, so a $20B investment from Apple is something Disney would love. It's just a matter of what rights it gives Apple - because they will demand that some ESPN content be funneled exclusively to their platform - an ESPN on AppleTV+ feature. They may also offer Apple TV+ as part of the bundle with ESPN, Disney+, and Hulu.

Depends on how many teams want to go and if part of the deal involves dissolving the AAC. ESPN has said they are willing to release the conference from the contract. The leave fees do not apply if the conference dissolves. Those are the rumors now because if the PAC expands, it retains its Power 5 status. Apple has said they will still pay $15M per school if the PAC expands. I would assume the PAC would then stand for Pan American Conference to make it logical for it to be nationwide.

I think that's the difference. Scott knew recruiting at Clemson. Not sure he did a ton of playcalling at Clemson. Golesh can recruit but he also has a history of playcalling and adapting to the talent he has. This goes behind the larger plays but also to things like how a certain blocking scheme matches the personnel on the OL. Scott and his staff didn't do much of that and weren't great at finding the proper fits for what they wanted to do while recruiting. I don't know if Golesh will work out but Scott was pretty much only a Clemson guy during his coaching career. He mostly only worked under Swinney. Golesh has a much more diverse background as a coach. Went through 2 coaches at Illinois and was retained. Then was brought in by Matt Campbell at Iowa State then Heupel. Matt Campbell has a strong focus on the trenches, especially the offensive line. Campbell has been a more adaptive coach between his time at Toledo and Iowa State. I expect Golesh is similar. He assesses the strengths of his players against the weaknesses and implements schemes that fit the talent. Scott could not do that. He also has clearly worked really hard at the outset here. He has the determination pretty clearly. Not it's a question of if he can do the job. Find a way to win quickly and the recruits will come.

I like Leavitt and I think he needs to come back to USF in some way but I'm not convinced bringing him back as HC is the move. He hasn't been a HC for over a decade. I don't think he's a plug and play fit anymore for coaching or recruiting. He's also 65, so how long does he want to be coaching? He was not treated fairly and that needs to be rectified, but we can't keep thinking every time there is an opening that we need to bring Leavitt back. I get it - we had our greatest success with him. Getting to #2 after beating Auburn and WVU was amazing (just as the loss to Rutgers was heartbreaking) but I don't think bringing Leavitt back to coach brings that back. Honor Leavitt, make him welcome at USF, make sure he is part of the program if he wants to be but find someone new to bring us back to relevance.