Stanford, Cal and SMU to the ACC

B12 took leftovers, ACC is in desperation mode taking the scraps left in the dog bowl. The ONLY reasons these schools were accepted is b/c they got such a huge discount. SMU is coming in allegedly for FREE and Calford are likely getting $15-20M/yr, less than half a full share.

This is getting an ipad for $250, but its a refurb. 

They mention this is the tweet (and I've seen it elsewhere) but the ACC adding these teams is for survival, as UNC, FSU, and Clemson (and possibly other teams) are looking to leave the league and if that happens ESPN can renegotiate their media deal, which my guess will go about the way the Pac-12's went.  So this is a way to stave off losing a ton of money in the future and at least getting some good schools overall in the process.  If I'm the ACC I'd rather pick up Cal and Stanford now versus scrambling in 3 years and taking on, I don't know, App St. and Memphis because they're available.  Cal, Stanford, and SMU at least have the ability to keep the lights on.

The Big Ten chose to take Rutgers. They weren't the leftovers of anything. They were the 'squint hard and they're New York's team' addition. But that's the thing with squinting, sometimes you spot the dime, other times you think a police horse is Jerry's cousin.

The addition of Rutgers successfully brought BTN to New York and the rest of the northeast, solidifying the Big Ten's position as the richest conference. Their addition also killed the possibility of Penn State bolting for the ACC, ensuring stability for the coming decade. See the Pac-12, Big 12, and ACC for what happens when you lack stability. 

Yeah, they're an athletics doormat, but there's a lot of revisionist history about adding them. It was a smart move.

SMU is expected to come in for nine years with no broadcast media revenue, sources told ESPN, and both Cal and Stanford were expected to receive 30% shares of ACC payouts. That money being withheld is expected to create an annual pot of revenue between $50 million and $60 million. Some of the revenue will be divided proportionally among the 14 full-time members and Notre Dame, while another portion will be put in a pool designated for success initiatives that rewards programs that win.

ACC shopping at Dollar Tree:

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38304694/sources-acc-votes-invite-stanford-cal-smu

I'm not sure $60M/14 = $4.3M, probably no more than $3M if they divert some of that to a performance pool of $$$. It's pennies relative to the $10-40M/yr the ACC schools will be short of the B10/SEC b/t now and 2030

Yeah the ACC trying to stave off extinction, but in order to do that they need to make ND a full time, permanant member. But why would ND want to be if Clemson and FSU are about to leave. And for the teams you suggested above which make sense, are Memphis and App St going to do anything other than add teams for the sake of keeping the ESPN deal alive till 2036. 

It is going to be a very weird conference. 

Stanford has money to burn, but not Cal. Cal among the most debt-ridden and financially dysfunctional athletic departments in the Power 5.

If the atheletes got revenue sharing from the TV deals would that bring you back in?

Dad I am shocked you post on MGoBlog using your flip phone.

As long as Michigan is a have no matter the "state" of college football the stadium will remain full and we will pay our $ to stream when that day comes in full.

The athletes have it better than ever before. NIL and transfer portal gives them immense power.

But the next step is to untangle the business that is CFB and CBB from the rest of the sports because those worlds are so far apart at this point it's not doing anyone a favor to keep them together.

The over/under on # of years until we have a College Football Premier League just dropped from 10 years to 8 years.

I'm always a bit dubious of the stats claiming these athletic departments aren't net positive of revenue.  The most up-to-date data I've seen (that article references 2019 numbers, which were negatively impacted by COVID shutdown) paints basically an even picture, with total revenue equalling total expenses.  And total expenses oftentimes are due to either long-term infrastructure investments that were, at least in part, taken up in order to not show an excess revenue.  Basically, schools are inclined to use up as much budget as they have and so that's why you see these projects where locker rooms are remodeled every couple of years, practice facilities keep getting upgrades, a bunch of ticket bros with MBAs get paid $400k/yr to make people believe that putting a Kraft noodle in a parking lot will draw fans to games, etc.  

Look no further than what's happening at WVU, where former OSU head Gordon Gee massively overspent despite ample evidence the school wasn't likely to experience the growth he thought and is now cutting programs despite, for example, spending over $800M on campus-wide expansions and "improvements" they definitely didn't need.

“I love seeing cranes sprout up on our campus like spring daffodils, heralding rebirth and renewal,” Gee said in 2014. “Because a university that is not renewing itself is a university that is wilting and withering.”

The school added about 900 beds on its Morgantown campus since 2012. A report issued by the school shows no dormitories or apartments were at full occupancy last year, and one has been taken entirely offline.

Gee's idiociy isn't directly related to sports but considering Neal Brown (football) and Bob Huggins  (basketball) are/were some of the highest-paid people at the school and both should have been fired years earlier for incompetence but had such massive contracts/buyouts the school was afraid to pull the trigger.  

So yeah, if these athletic departments are losing money that's not great, but I'd rather they lose money because they're giving more to the athletes than bad coaches and "enhancements" that I'm sure are mostly cosmetic ways to zero out your budget every year.

If all that is left is a Cougars Beaver I am down with it.

Well done.  

the ACC TV deal has a pro rata clause. The new B1G deal does not, so the B1G would have to cut the pie with 2 extra slices. Oregon and Washington did not get a full share, but Fox did pony up an additional 30m (+/-) for those two schools. IF Fox didn't do that, I doubt that Oregon/Washington would have been added; more travel + less TV money = no deal.

Fox wasn't going to kick in more money for Stanford and Cal, so it would have been up to the schools to make them whole.