Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[BDYZR]

2 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

USF should put a pin in the stadium idea and use that money to fund entry into the ACC. We will forego all revenue from the conference for the rest of the current ACC contract. Much better use of the money at this point. 

BTW, we are officially doomed, at least until 2036. I'm going to check out of this thread for the next decade or so. 

Why would we not build HOPING for something in 12 years?

[belgianbull]

5 minutes ago, flsportsfan83 said:

ACC > Stadium

While I don't think its an either or; but Raymond James looked amazing when it was filled or even half filled when we were relevant in the Big East.  ACC is the ultimate goal. A  stadium can always be built in 10 years, especially with the extra ACC money

[belgianbull]

3 minutes ago, BDYZR said:

And if we don't do it now it will never happen. Our chances of getting into another conference, IMO, are slim and none. If they were to cancel stadium plans now then I would have to go to the dark side and agree with just shutting the program down.

USF has control over the stadium. USF has absolute ZERO control over conference realignment.

I agree, but that's not the question I responded to.  It was an either or question between ACC and an OCS. 

[Gismo]

If they have to bribe their way in with 7 years (!!!) of revenue, I would seriously question their worth as an expansion candidate to begin with. Doesn’t that mean they really don’t add a lot of value? Must only be to have another more western team for Stanford and Cal.

 

7 years of Revenue…!?

Edited August 23, 2023 by Gismo

[M50_BULL]

31 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

Hear me out.

AAC is $7 Mil per year.  That would be $49M that SMU would have to actually replace... their donors could do that no problem.

Plus SMU would get a larger CFP slice... and more money from NCAA tournament units.

The ACC "TV" deal is only about $17-$20 Million per year... the rest comes from the post-season and NCAA money to get up to $30 million.

 

YES!!! This nails it! I know it's a knee jerk reaction to say woah 7 yrs no money. That's crazy. However, please remember that the AAC, for all intents and purposes, provides minimum wage peanuts. The potential of money earned from being in a better conference far outweighs the $49M of no pay.

24 minutes ago, USFBULL_08 said:

ACC looking weak with all this indecision

Agree with this too, the four schools are definitely flexing their power over the conference.

[belgianbull]

4 minutes ago, Gismo said:

If they have to bribe their way in with 7 years (!!!) of revenue, I would seriously question their worth as an expansion candidate to begin with. Doesn’t that mean they really don’t add a lot of value? Must only be to have another more western team for Stanford and Cal.

 

7 years of Revenue…!?

Can it be like Ebay and can we outbid SMU and forego 8 years? I think I might just jump on it

[flsportsfan83]

2 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

Can it be like Ebay and can we outbid SMU and forego 8 years? I think I might just jump on it

**** go 10 years.

[Triple B]

8 hours ago, Triple B said:

Calling what they had a “brand” is a slap in the face to programs that had spent a helluvalot longer developing theirs. UCF is there because of the winning they did the last decade …. and they’re there probably in spite of their “brand”. 

 

8 hours ago, Mission9 said:

Not saying you are wrong but I know what he is talking about.  They were the most hated team by SEC fans for awhile because they were relentless about getting their name out there.  They challenged the idea that even the last place SEC team was better than anyone else and SEC fanboys despised them for it.   I knew it was bad when I happened to tune in to the Dave Ramsey show and he mentioned them to a Florida caller as an affordable option for her staying out of debt.  I knew all of their relentless, in your face comments had made an impact (right or wrong).

Not denying it made an impact .... but it was primarily on media/social media and can't imagine it having much of an effect on the B12 decision makers. They would totally be where they are without any of the stupid nonsense they've churned out over the last decade .... and saying that it's been a failure on USF's part to have not come up with our own '"branding" was kind of ridiculous. USF's only real failure was not winning enough and consistently.

[Jim Johnson]

20 minutes ago, flsportsfan83 said:

We really need the ACC to reject Stanford and Cal.

No we don't.  This really doesn't change all that much... sure USF to the "Pac 12" was fun to think about - but when FSU leaves the ACC, and they WILL leave, that USF's path.  Always has been.

 

[dausfbulls11]

Smu? Man this is depressing…..i guess after fsu/clemson/ maybe 3 or 4 leave the acc we might get looked at after tulane, memphis, wash st, and oregon st……seriously, depressing