TallyBull

19 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

Ok back on track….

This is just a restatement of what that CW Lambert guy said the other day. 

I have it on good authority that advanced renderings will be released during the spring game.

1 hour ago, Bear said:

I can't wait to see the REAL renderings when they are released sometime this month!?

Agreed. Anybody heard anything about this? I thought the "true" renderings were going to be released at or before the Spring Game, but I've seen nothing to confirm that. 

3 minutes ago, Bob Loblaw said:

Wait. Our AD has ACC connections? 

He does, although it hasn't translated to an ACC invitation - at least, not yet. Connections can only do so much... a vote by member institutions is required.

17 minutes ago, Bear said:

The biggest threat may actually be Miami.

 

They do NOT want to be in a league with us. If they can't get out of the ACC (then they would not vote to allow us in).

 

It's how we feel about FAU. 

Miami is just one vote and I'm not sure it has much political pull with the ACC's other members. In fact, if Miami did make a stink about it, I could see the other ACC members voting to add USF just to spite them. It was a bigger stretch for the ACC to invite Cal, Stanford, and SMU to the ACC - which FSU opposed as much as I'd expect Miami to oppose USF, if not more so - and we see how that vote went. The ACC could lock down the two largest media markets in Florida, at a time when keeping as strong a media deal as possible is key. USF is the logical add and I'd expect Miami to go along with it once it realizes it doesn't have the votes to keep USF out.

EDIT: How we feel about FAU didn't manage to keep FAU out of the AAC either (sadly).

1 hour ago, michibull said:

The only hang up for us is if the ACC wants western partnered for Cal/Stanford, then OSU/WSU/SDSU become real threats to us. 

Even if Cal and Stanford stick with the ACC long-term (I have my doubts), that doesn't mean the ACC's other members will vote to add Pacific Northwest schools that nobody else wanted, just because they used to be in an auto-bid conference. I'd anticipate a much more modest move westward with bigger media market impacts (maybe paring SDSU with Cal and Stanford and Tulane with SMU), thereby strategically accommodating Cal, Stanford, and SMU somewhat, and adding USF (to keep two AAU schools in always-booming Florida) and UConn (to ensure the ACC remains a significant BB conference after losing UNC and Virginia) to fill things out on the east coast.

The ACC currently has 17 football schools plus ND. Rumors suggest that the ACC will likely lose 4 football schools (FSU, Clemson, UNC, and Virginia). Seems to me they'll add USF, UConn, and Tulane, and *maybe* SDSU to get back to 17. I think the ACC is likely to remain primarily an east-coast conference, in the same way the B1G will remain primarily a mid-western conference notwithstanding its additions of Oregon, USC, and UCLA. I also think that ND will stick around; they value independence more than any affiliation with the four schools rumored to be leaving.

Just my two cents.

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.

Posting this because there are a lot of people on this board and on X that seem to put a lot of stock into this anonymous account. I also find his constant P2 triumphalism a bit grating.

16 minutes ago, stonedonkey said:

Maybe I'm just old and selfish but I don't have any desire to sit in sweltering games without access to a club level with AC and amenties.  I'm also not in the boat that having a stadium on campus brings more people - winning brings more people.   Maybe during your downtimes you'll attract more locals and students but in aggragate being ranked, winning games, being compeitive will drive attendance.

That said it's a done deal, I'll attend games when things cool off or at night, but if last summer was any indication of the future temps my couch is looking pretty comfy.

My understanding is that there will be a club area just like at RJS. I like to be outside, even if it's hot (sunblock, hats, and sunglasses are helpful), but it's nice to have a retreat to AC if you need it! And I think we'll have one, although it may not be quite as fancy as at RJS. 

49 minutes ago, Gismo said:

https://x.com/fifthquarterfsu/status/1770651211844272588?s=20

How does one embed Xweets on mobile?

I think the problem is the "X.com" portion of the link. For whatever reason TheBullspen.com won't embed X.com links the way it embeds Twitter.com links. My work-around (there may be others):

1. Click on the bottom-right corner of the post (specifically the u-shaped bracket with the arrow pointing up).
2. Click "Share via."
3. Click "Open in Safari."
4. Copy and paste the link from the URL window (it should start with "Twitter.com," not "X.com").
5. Embed the URL starting with "Twitter.com" into your TheBullspen.com post.

Works for me. I'm not particularly tech-savvy, so there may be other/better ways to do this.

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. 

8 minutes ago, aroth said:

Personally, I think as more schools file suit the ACC should start negotiating reduced exit fees with schools that likely have spots in the P2. The absolute worst case scenario for the ACC is having a judge determine the GOR is unenforceable. If that happens it’s going to be tough to hold it together.

The ACC would get nothing from the schools going to the P2, and some schools will bolt for the B12 for stability if there’s no penalty. If there’s still a question of the enforceability of the GOR it will likely keep schools that may go to the B12 from challenging it as the reward doesn’t outweigh the penalty.

Agree 100% and I strongly suspect this is the anticipated end game. But how soon do they get there?

31 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Then you should fully appreciate that board approval sounds like a better endorsement than it typically is (from a good idea perspective).

And you should appreciate that voting to spend money is about as good an endorsement for an idea as you'll ever get from anyone, including from board members.

2 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?

Maybe, and that would be unfortunate, because I'd much rather be in the ACC than the Big 12. That said, if the ACC is ruled out and the Big 12 comes calling...

18 minutes ago, puc86 said:

You should go to more board meetings in life

Funny, because I'm a lawyer who's been to literally dozens of board meetings in my career. I think I've been to enough. 

Not trying to shut down discussion here at all. But there will always be stadium detractors. @puc86 is the loyal opposition on that issue, but he's also very much in the minority, as evidenced by the actions of our administration and Board of Trustees (people who matter), as well as most of our fans.

7 minutes ago, Mike Stuben said:

I think they add one less than what leaves to get to 16. So if 4 leave, I think 3 get added (USF, UConn, Tulane)

Makes sense. 

8 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

I don't know. If a Duke, Stanford, Cal. Pitt, and Georgia Tech get the choice between being in a conference with us, Tulane, Syracuse, Wake Forrest, and Boston College or the Big 12, they will fall over themselves to get in the Big 12.

Again assuming the ACC loses more than 4 teams. If its just 4 the ACC will be fine. If its more the Big 12 will be in a good position.

I think this is the best possible result for USF. UNC and Virginia end up in the B1G, and FSU and Clemson end up in the SEC. Everyone else stays, they tack on UConn and USF (maybe also Tulane?), and they leave a little room for potential Big 12 poaching down the road (Utah, Kansas). 

On a separate note, this could all happen very quickly. If FSU, Clemson, UNC, and Virginia all leave via settlement, the ACC needs to be on the horn to add back up to 16-17 at basically the same time to keep the ESPN contract, assuming that contract isn't modified at some point.

3 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

Cal and Stanford wanted nothing to do with big 12 for the academic reputation. they will not want anything to do with boise, sdsu and memphis

True but that assumes they're getting the upside they anticipated getting in the ACC (money, CFP access, prestige, etc.). If, however, the ACC takes a step or two back due to losing significant teams, I think going back to a reconstituted Pac-12 is more likely long-term than staying in the ACC (with or without those schools). At some point Cal and Stanford will just have to suck it up. They have no long-term future in a watered-down east coast league. Might as well rebuild a watered-down west coast league, or join the Big 12 in protest, and save the travel headaches.

3 minutes ago, UCF_rustbucket said:

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).

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. 

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. 

19 minutes ago, panchosanchez99 said:

While it is fun to discuss this issue, it is pretty much meaningless. We have no idea what CAAR feels and what communication he has had with the school about potential opportunities from other schools. What if CAAR told his boss that he has no intentions of leaving for a "bigger school" or for more pay? 

For some coaches, they are happy where they are for a variety of reasons. If it were me, being in a city with great climate and beaches and a few hours drive away from many other nice beach towns and from Disney, I would not want to leave that. What about a coach who would rather build a program to prominence than to coach at one that is already established? Leavitt turned down the Alabama job to build USF football into prominence.

The more I hear CAAR speak, the more he comes across to me as someone who would prefer to build USF into a powerhouse than to go to an already established program. He is a man who believes in family happiness, engagement with the community and in being an influence for young athletes. He is achieving these things with great success here. Sometimes there are more important things in life than earning the most money possible. Perhaps he would be happier in building USF into a powerhouse for $2 million than going to FSU for $4 million.

This is all possible. If true, we will have truly found a gem in AAR. There are exceptions to every rule. Leavitt staying at USF instead of going to Alabama, for example. Dusty May staying at FAU after the NCAAT last year. Will CAAR and/or CAG be exceptions to the rule? Only time will tell, but I sure hope so.

On the other hand, skeptics will say this line of reasoning is cute, but $$$ is all that matters. There's some truth to that, based on human nature and past experience. Also, media folks (especially those with strong biases or fans of blue-blood schools (trying to avoid referencing the whole made-up "power" nomenclature BS) will tell you in writing and on the radio that "it's only a matter of time" while they lick their chops, encouraging their schools to poach our good coaches. They aren't interested in the exceptions, because they want us/need us to be their developmental league - so they don't focus on or even mention that possibility.

But I prefer to focus on the possibility CAAR and/or CAG will turn out to be exceptions, and leave the rest to ADMK (clearly he has earned our trust) and our big-money boosters to handle everything else. Not much more I can do about it really.