TallyBull

25 minutes ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

So they’d rather take their chances playing for free in the ACC on the east coast then associate with AAC and MWC teams and get paid?   

It's getting a little crazy.

Let's think this through. What are the motivations for joining a "P5" conference?

• More money
• Access to CFP

Set aside the B1G, B12, and SEC for a moment. If your goal is to get into the ACC, but you're giving up the money for 5 years, and the ACC may no longer exist as a "power" conference in 5 years because the B1G, B12, and SEC are going to poach most of your teams, isn't there a significant risk that you will both make no money over that timeframe and ultimately lose what you perceive to be better access to the CFP?

While the G5's access isn't as good as in a P5 conference, it seems like there's momentum of guaranteeing G5 teams at least one, possibly two, spots in the CFP. So if you're making no money and have similar (admittedly not equal) access to the CFP in the AAC, is this all worth it?

Seems to me like the snooty officials at Stanford and Cal, and the desperate boosters at SMU, haven't really thought this through. I guess the gamble could pay off if the ACC sticks together? But maybe I'm missing something. 

8 hours ago, Brad said:

Bizarre.  The perp that provided the greatest lie in USF history…

 

He rightfully lost his USF mole. 

He’s a jerk and I hate him.

But also, he’s rarely wrong. 

Still haven’t seen a reputable source reporting that the ACC will be voting tomorrow. I’ll believe it when the mustache reports it.

11 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

Ralph D. Russo: Stanford has informed Cal, Wazzu and Oregon State it is willing to go at a reduced rate or even forego payments to join ACC

This is from Reddit.  

Imagine getting rejected even if you join for free! That would be so sad

Once we learn what Stanford is doing, the rest will fall into place.

15 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

 

Who would decide which schools are FBS and which are FCS?

17 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

OF COURSE the TV contract would be worth it.  Are you telling me you would not want to double (or more) the revenue USF gets?  Why not?

"Travel costs" get bandied about a lot ... but we already play non-conference games out west.  Men's soccer has a tournament in Seattle this year.  Volleyball is playing one in South Dakota.  Baseball went to Long Beach last season.... it's not like we'd be sending teams out west against all four of them - some seasons they will come east.

Every AAC team wants more prestige and more money -- so the "top tier AAC" teams will gladly drop some of their lesser conference mates (UNT, UAB, FAU?) to join a conference with PAC and the better MWC teams.

The new PAC won't have an ironclad GOR... because all of them will still want to move up.

But a "PAAC" or a new PAC will still be BETTER than the current AAC.  USF should take it in a heartbeat.

I was referring to a new PAC that does NOT include Stanford or Cal. If that conference (with just Wazzou and Oregon State) gets $14m a year per team, yeah, in that case USF should do it. I just sincerely doubt it will. Need Stanford and Cal to bring in that much. 

29 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Ummm. how can you rebuild the PAC 12 without G5's being your ONLY option ....... ?

I think he means rebuild using G5 schools as backfill vs. a merger with a G5 conference. I had the same question.

EDIT: I see now that you got there. 

4 minutes ago, SilverBull said:

Yeah, some may think we will be right there between the Beavers and Wazzu but we taint.

2 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

 

Can't read the article because it's behind a paywall, but he'd better hope Stanford and Cal stick around. I'm skeptical that any top tier AAC schools will abandon the AAC to join a new Pac-12 with just Wazzou and Oregon State. The TV contract wouldn't be worth it.

8 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

He's not wrong.

 

 

That's not the point. The disingenuous "WTF?" is the point.

2 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

Who dis guy

He's been trolling for a few weeks. UCFer

Friendly reminder to not feed the trolls. 

1 minute ago, CousinRicky said:

Just leave UConn the F out of any conference and give WBB a chance to win the conference.

100% this.

Besides, UConn left the American to join the Big East in BB and go independent in FB. I don't see them abandoning the Big East unless it's for a boatload of money (like ACC or better money).

7 minutes ago, USFBULL_08 said:

Hard to believe the MWC would just sit back and wait for their conference to get raided to death.

I agree, Wyoming and New Mexico should do something

What if Stanford ends up in the ACC, but Cal doesn't? Would a new PAC still be viable without Stanford? 

I think so. You could have:

West

• Wazzou
• Oregon State
• Cal
• SMU
• SDSU (2025)
• Boise State (2025)

East

• Memphis
• ECU
• Tulane
• USF
• Navy (2025)
• Temple (2025)

Would still be a better conference than AAC.

Just now, CousinRicky said:

Rutgers? Besides playing in the first college game in the 1800s not sure they are blue bloods.

You’re right, except they (allegedly) command the NY/NJ market. Classic example of falling up. I can think of about 12 schools that would have been better choices to join the B1G than Rutgers. Don’t think the B1G will make that mistake again. 

13 minutes ago, Bull Gooner said:

So if UO/UW had stayed put, the PAC would be intact with that Apple deal. Sounded like an interesting concept. 

I think there could also be branding benefits to being Apple's sole CFB media property.  I suspect it would promote/market the ever-loving poop out of it. USF needs to build its brand - step 1 is winning, of course, but step 2 could be Apple marketing/branding efforts. 

7 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

I don't see the PAC being viable long term without some more balance. There needs to be 12 to 16 teams and two divisions. That will make scheduling and travel for non-revenue sports much more palatable. 

PAC West: Stanford, Cal, Oregon St. Wash. St., SDSU, Colorado St. If they go to 14, add Air Force. If they go to 16 add UNLV. 

PAC East: USF, Tulane, Rice, SMU, Memphis, UTSA. If 14: Tulsa. If 16: Charlotte or ECU 

An 8 or 10 member PAC would be destined to crumble quickly the next time there is any sort of realignment. 

I like your ideas. Something also to consider: we should leave a little room for ACC leftovers if/when that conference collapses as predicted. So I'd prefer a 12-team set up initially (PAC-4, top 4 from AAC in 2024 (USF, Tulane, SMU, and Memphis), and top 4 from MWC in 2025 (SDSU, Boise State, Colorado State, and UNLV). We then have at least 4 slots for additional ACC teams down the road. Rice, Air Force, Navy, etc. aren't going anywhere so we can always add them later if the ACC sticks together.

1 minute ago, TheUpperHand said:

Getting hopes up for a positive USF outcome:

Who knows? Maybe he'll stop before he goes over the cliff this time. 

And in any case, we don't really have the option of not playing the game.

Interesting discussion about the proposed PAC Apple deal. I like it a little more after hearing this (could maybe resurface if the PAC rebuilds)?:

FWIW it seems there's much more smoke/excitement on social media about the PAC potentially rebuilding itself than there is about a potential merger between the PAC and the AAC. 

10 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

Yes exactly. This is USF opportunity. They must win tons and get back some respect. So if & when the ACC expands USF is a shoe in with or without FSU leaving. 

An aside - can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if the P2 break away and FSU and Miami aren't a part of either the B1G or the SEC? I know they will probably at some point get the call up, but the amount of puckering in the meantime would be great fun. Due to its age, USF has never had expectations of joining either the B1G or the SEC - those conferences only accept blue-bloods - but FSU and Miami probably couldn't imagine a world of CFB that doesn't include them at the highest levels. So much kvetching!

7 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

Even if we get into the PAC, I imagine the propaganda will just keep saying P4 and will us out of existence.

Not if Stanford and Cal are in the conference. They clearly have the sympathy of many presidents and ADs, and our best shot (imperfect as it is) would be to hitch our wagon to them. I think if the PAC rebuilds there will still be a de jure P5 but a de facto P2. So we'd be as much a "P5" as the Big 12 and the ACC, perhaps not earning as much money as them, but also not part of the "P2." 

And even with respect to the "P2," contraction is coming down the road...  Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, etc. won't be able to mooch off of the brand names forever. 

1 minute ago, Cat941 said:

Rice keeps coming up.  Hmm.  

I would take Memphis over Rice every day of the week and twice on Sunday, but it seems this is an academic/market thing.