macphisto

5 hours ago, T-Man said:

I am only echoing what many upper FSU boosters have told friends I know..  I hope that you are right.  Either way ACC or Big10, just get us out of AAC

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.  

3 minutes ago, T-Man said:

FSU was close to AAU membership and should get it next go around.  Let's set our goals to more realistic conference.  Clemson and FSU to Big10.  USF and Tulane to ACC.  If two more leave ACC, then add Memphis and ....  The ACC surviving and thriving with us in it is the most realistic hope.  

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.

7 hours ago, OnTheBus said:

It’s been a swell 36 hours.

I was so incredibly wrong about CAG a year ago.

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.

6 hours ago, Bull Matrix said:

Keep an eye on USF to big ten rumors this offseason…

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.

1 hour ago, Outlaw said:

The latest rumors.

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.  

11 minutes ago, Bob Loblaw said:

Agree with many here. Exposed stadium beams look el cheapo. No way around that. We all expected more. 

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

8 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

if thats what we are getting for 340 million than I think we are being had.

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.

6 hours ago, The Sheriff said:

FSU will be left out with UGA. 
 

UM will be the #1 seed.

UW will be the #2 seed. 
UT will be the #3 seed.

Alabama will be the #4 seed. 
 

My take - UW plays Alabama for the National Championship. 
 

Best playoff yet from a competitive standpoint. 

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

46 minutes ago, GoBulls84 said:

Florida State is routinely in the top 10-20 teams in TV ratings for the year, at least for the handful of years I could pull up looking back. And they've only been further rising as Norvell has rebuilt the program. The biggest tripping block with Florida State is the same tripping block for the other top ACC targets: nobody knows just exactly how much getting them out of the GOR will cost.  

The Pac2 and Mountain West have already been in talks on a scheduling agreement to give Wazzou and the Beavs a full slate next year. They've essentially already opened the door to merging the MW under the Pac name. I think most likely scenario is the conference remaining a west coast conference.

 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.

4 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

We'll see. I just don't buy a gentleman's agreement from the same people who just destroyed your conference and took almost all your teams. Nothing in the history of college football shows those in power willing to split the pie more ways. Greed reigns supreme. Especially with outsiders, which is who the PAC will be mostly comprised of after they backfill. 

The push for 5+7 also shows they don't intend to view the new PAC as a peer. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cfp-leaders-moving-closer-to-adjusting-12-team-playoff-format-230208506.html

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.

 

8 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

Yeah I don't know what to tell you but I'm strongly willing to bet that's incorrect.

 

If you're a USF fan then you should remember living it with the collapse of the Big East. The Big East was an AQ conference in the BCS but after losing 5/8 members and backfilling with mostly CUSA, it was not kept on a power conference in the CFP era. The Big East had a TV deal offer from ESPN for $130M a year for the whole conference. Turned it down, got raided, and the new offer shrunk down to $130M over 7 years.

 

Big East Conference, ESPN finalizing 7-year, $130 million media deal - ESPN

WWW.ESPN.COM

---

The Big East and ESPN are finalizing a seven-year media rights deal worth...

ESPN didn't keep the same offer after membership turned over a whole bunch, why would Apple?

 

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.

8 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

No, the PAC isn't retaining any P5 status. The 2 year window they have to repopulate is the NCAA grace period for having the minimum number of teams to simply exist as a conference, not a P conference. 

The current CFP contract runs only through the 25 football season. They need unanimous approval to change from 6+6 to 5+7, and the PAC 2 may block it. But from 26 onward they don't need unanimous approval so it's inevitable even if delayed.

The Apple TV deal is absolutely not on the table. They're not gonna pay a glorified MWC what they were going to pay the PAC 10. 

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).

23 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

The PAC isn't retaining it's power 5 status, which is separate from autonomy status which they should keep. There's not a hard set definition but we can probably boil P5 status down to big tv money and an automatic NY6 bowl tie in. We can probably add voter perception in how the teams get treated in the polls but that's harder to quantify.

The TV money is going away. OSU/WSU were the only 2 PAC teams that the media powers didn't save in any of their other power conferences. Adding them to the existing MWC or some combination of a best of the rest will get you something a little more than the current AAC deal. Maybe $7M to $12M per team. Not awful but a gulf between that and the ACC/Big 12 and their $30M.

Next is the autobid. With the CFP expanding to 12, all the current NY6 bowls will now rotate between 4 being quarterfinals and 2 being semifinals every year. So the Rose Bowl as a regular bowl with PAC vs B1G tie ins won't exist anymore. 

For the playoff autobids, there's no set bids for specific leagues. It's not spelled out to be SEC champ, B1G champ, etc ... And G5 champ. It's just the highest 6 ranked champs. The goal is 1 for every P conference and 1 for the G5. But with the PAC 12 thoroughly raided, the CFP committee is now pushing for 5 champ bids instead of 6. Aka, they're acknowledging that there's now a P4 and not a P5. This still maintains the same structure of giving every P conference an unofficial slot and the G5 one shared slot. Unofficial because on paper, multiple G5 champs are eligible for those spots, but reality of how the voters rank the teams is that you'll only have 1 G5 champ in that range. The PAC 12 as P5 league is dead.

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.

 

18 hours ago, GoBulls84 said:

I wouldn't discount the idea of FSU to the B1G. They're a national brand, they draw eyeballs, and while not currently in the AAU, allegedly USF getting in before them lit a fire under some people's a$$es to get it done. Despite the lack of AAU status, they're still a pre-eminent school in the state, and if the B1G wanted a Florida brand that could compete with UF, they'd take Florida State before Miami IMO. 

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. 

17 hours ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

I don't think there's enough value left in the PAC. If there were at least 4 but probably 6 legacy teams left, then they'd have the value to build a best of the rest league. 

But with just the 2 Pacific Northwest little brothers? Not sure it's there. So since the money isn't there, it's not really worthwhile for either MWC or AAC schools to pay the exit fees and make marginally better money in a far flung league. Instead the easiest and most straightforward path is just merge with the MWC because this avoids the need for exit fees and keeps it geographically tighter.

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.

27 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

It would be a blow to the AAC if OSU and WSU joined the Mountain West.

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.

13 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

I believe FAU’s best shot for the power conferences is the big 12. ACC will eventually invite USF after FSU leaves for SEC or big ten. FAU can help UCiF travel issues. ACC already has Canes and will make a good rivalry with USF..

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.

13 hours ago, El_Toro_86 said:

Highly likely with the schedule ahead of us

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.

5 hours ago, John Lewis said:

I would highly doubt that FSU has no interest in the B1G and I would also highly doubt that they have interest in the Big XII. The bottom line for them is that they want equal annual tv revenue to what UF is getting and they will only get that in 2 places. They will go to either of those 2 places if the invitation is made.

Agree with you regarding Miami.

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.

18 hours ago, belgianbull said:

No but if the ACC adds two California teams it would likely add more Western and Mid America teams to create a bridge between the Cali teams and other ACC teams. SMU would probably be the team they would add as well. That would decimate  the AAC even more.

We would need not just FSU to move on , but Miami also. Teams like San Diego State, Memphis, and Tulane might become prime candidates for the ACC. Not saying we wouldn't still have the chance to move to the ACC, but it would in my opinion decrease our chances

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.

2 hours ago, Who'sYourData? said:

Fascinating side conversation here about "failing business".  ESPN is still making boatloads of money.  Their problem is they are running out of ways to *grow* the business, so that impacts stock prices.  Investors don't like companies that merely are profitable.  There is something fundamentally wrong with some of our economic models.

They also have to transition from assuming linear and streaming services will carry the networks and pay them X money per subscriber.  If they stream on their own they need to charge more to make up for those paying that don't use the network.  While challenging, that is hardly insurmountable and they will figure that out.

In all, they really just need to figure out the international market gold mine to allow for future growth and investors will be happy again.

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.  

On 8/19/2023 at 10:11 PM, Ghostbuster said:

Sure he'll regurgitate that nonsense but take potshots at USF's chances moving up....  Come on, the PAC does not have a viable path for option 3.  Their TV deal ends this year and no team from MWC/AAC can leave in less than a year to join them.

MWC - "Per conference bylaws, the $16.5 million buyout jumps to $34 million if notice is given later than July 1".  That's from a recent article about SDSU's quick 180, when they tried to leave the MWC for the PAC only to turn tail and say they wanted to stick with MWC.

AAC- Just made Cincy/UCF/Houston pay 18 million to leave sooner than the required 27 month notice.  Fee would be higher for a (now) quicker exit; and what idiot would pay that much to join a 4 team conference that doesn't have a media deal?  

Even SDSU saw the writing on the wall and noped back to the MWC.  So the PAC is only pretending like they have an option to expand.  That ship sailed.

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.

On 12/29/2022 at 7:01 PM, El_Toro_86 said:

All Scott talked about was Clemson because that's all he knew.  Once the Clemson playbook didn't work here he was lost.

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.