you do realize we sit in a conference (Big 12) with no Football blue bloods starting next season…right?
That MAY happen to SMU but Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, etc. have NOT announced they are leaving, as of this post…
We are all still waiting.
The same thing will be true of the ACC in the future according to pretty much every expert on the topic.
Stay tuned.
And even worse…it won’t have any mid-bloods either given that their value will be lower than the Big 12’s at that point.
That’s what the ACC will be left with.
They only lose what they would have made in the AAC (which they’ve already raised BTW)…everything else is icing on the cake!
I’m still waiting…lol
Which will be almost nothing in the end.
In the end, they’ll be left behind with Wake Forest, BC, Duke, etc.
Now, here’s the bigger question.
Could the PAC-2 each take $200-$300 million (please note that I have no idea whether or not this will stand up on appeal, but let’s just assume, hypothetically, it does), and then use that to “buy” their way into the Big 12?
As I said…STAY TUNED!!!
…so just like the Big 12 with Baylor, West Virginia, Iowa State?
Those are definitely bigger football brands than those that SMU would be left behind with.
Iowa State fills up a 60K stadium each week.
West Virginia does the same.
MUCH bigger brands than the future ACC without its current blue bloods and mid-bloods.
Don’t pretend that the ACC won’t be left behind with far smaller football brands.
But ACC leftovers constitute a solid academic prestige.
That won’t make them any money.
LAW, you have Big 12 colored glasses.
Nobody in the current ACC (or FSU/Clemson-less ACC) thinks the Big 12 is the top of the mountain.
At best, they are equals but right now the ACC thinks they are better than the Big 12.
What SMU did was brilliant, especially in light of the CAL/Stanford departure.
SMU doesn’t get a P4 invite without convincing them to be a package deal.
Brilliant maybe, but the fine print where they dont get any of the revenue for years is a bit of a head scratcher
And it’s not even brilliant because those blue bloods are leaving for the SEC and B1G as soon as they get the chance.
Without them, renegotiation of the TV contract is possible, and with the loss of value from those blue bloods, it’ll be way below the Big 12.
Consider this, the value of the ACC WITH blue bloods is about even with the Big 12.
Without them, it’ll be way less. That will likely prompt some mid-bloods like Louisville, Pitt, etc to bolt to the Big 12.
SMU will be left behind with the small brands that provide only a crappy TV deal….with NO money to show for it.
Anyone who defines a move with that outcome as brilliant….is probably on crack.
That’s the same thing they said about the Big12 when OU & UT left. How did that turn out?
It’s actually turned out to be not so good.
The ratings on intra conference non OUT games are bad.
Unlike with the Big 12, there are no longer any worthwhile brands left to expand with.
NONE will make up for that loss of value.
Not the same.
That’s been asked and answered several times previously.
LAW…if you think Cincinnati, Houston, UCF & BYU are huge slam dunk brands…you aren’t paying attention.
If the ACC loses four brands, they backfill with USF, UCONN, Tulane and Memphis (or head west with SDSU) and will STILL be neck and neck with the Big 12.
The expansion trio ensured their survival.
I and some other old fart Ute fans are looking at our blood as shifting into the purple spectrum, given 20 years of proving we aren’t to be ignored. Sure we have ups and downs, but after losing a tight game to Washington in Seattle, few voters punished us the way they would have 20 years ago.
[I’m mostly having some fun with that comment about no blue bloods LOL]
FUN FACT: “blue blood” is a reference to the chronic genetically reinforced hemophilia in the European Royal Families from all the inbreeding. Bizarre how it somehow became an adjective with a theoretically positive flavor.
©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com