ADVERTISEMENT

ACC votes to invite Stanford, Cal, SMU

Halldan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 1, 2003
186,721
100,735
113

Pete Thamel, ESPN

The Atlantic Coast Conference is expanding from its Eastern roots.

The ACC presidents and chancellors met Friday morning and voted to add three schools -- Stanford, Cal and SMU, sources told ESPN. It will bring the league to 18 members -- 17 will play football full time in the league. The additions are in all sports and will begin in the 2024-25 school year.

The moves have been the subject of much drama the past month, as commissioner Jim Phillips worked diligently to appease a group of members eager to add the schools and others seeking more revenue. The protracted process ultimately ended with the ACC growing amid a backdrop that brought to light some of the fundamental tensions within the league.

The move unfolded in an atypical process, as typically votes in league matters are cast as unanimous and a formality when the presidents meet to decide. The ACC needed 12 of 15 votes. Heading into the meeting on Friday morning it was uncertain whether or not the league had votes, a significant variance from how conference expansion typically works.

In a straw poll more than three weeks ago, four ACC schools dissented -- Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and NC State. One of them needed to flip for the vote to pass and all eyes entered the meeting on NC State chancellor Randy Woodson.

The focus on Woodson intensified Thursday night when members of the University of North Carolina's board of trustees issued a statement to voice their objection to the additions. That move was perceived around the ACC as a political statement to be sure that UNC chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz didn't flip his vote.

UNC and NC State did not need to be tied together, but some of the uncertainty around Woodson's vote came from the political ramifications of not being aligned with North Carolina.

The ACC joins the ranks of a rapidly changing collegiate landscape. Starting next year the Big Ten will have 18 teams and the Big 12 and SEC will have 16. The move leaves the Pac-12 with just two remaining programs, Washington State and Oregon State, a continued spiral that has included the league losing eight teams since late July.

Cal, Stanford and SMU will come at a significant discount, which will help create a revenue pool to be shared among ACC members. 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.

The move delivers a life preserver to the athletic departments at Stanford and Cal, which were left twisting amid the Pac-12's implosion. Stanford has an athletic department that's considered the gold standard in college athletics. Both will face increased travel costs, which will significantly impact a Cal athletic department that faces hundreds of millions in debt.

For SMU, the decision to forgo television revenue gave it a seat in a major conference and the school will lean on its wealthy boosters to help it stay afloat until revenue comes in. It marks a significant moment for the school's climb back from the death penalty for major infractions that led to the school not playing football in 1987 and 1988. SMU didn't return to a bowl until 2009 after the penalties.


Even with the vote going through, the nearly monthlong saga to decide on the addition illuminated the divisions in the ACC. Both Florida State and Clemson have spoken publicly about how the revenue gap between the ACC and the Big Ten and SEC needs to close.

While those schools had not been supportive of the additions heading into the final meeting, the decision does give them access to millions more in annual revenue if they succeed on the field. With the ACC television contract running through 2036, the past few weeks have highlighted the uncertainty that will linger into the upcoming years.

Florida State officials have been particularly vocal about leaving the league, with president Richard McCullough saying the Seminoles would "very seriously" consider leaving if the revenue-distribution model didn't change significantly. This move by the ACC does not appear to change that tenor.

For other schools in the ACC, the three new schools represent both the addition of quality academic institutions and safety in numbers. Cal and Stanford were the last major conference schools that offered significant value left on the board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chickenbox
Having the big fb schools against
Not sure if that is fair. Are any pac 10 schools perennial fb powers? I know nothing of current college fb but they seem more the perfect add on than the central bldg block. They make others better but on their own they aren't enough. Arent the bt and sec way ahead of all in fb. My out of touch opinion.

I do remember Greg Pruitt and jerry tagge kicking ass one thanksgiving lol
 
Last edited:
Sheer stupidity. The other ACC schools not named FL State or Clemson or NC had an inferiority complex and got scared about what would be left if Clemson or FL State left the conference. And ND for whatever reason wanted this too as they play Stanford often and Cal on occasion too. Gives them a chance to keep recruiting the west coast. The schools caved in fear of their future IMO.
 

Pete Thamel, ESPN

The Atlantic Coast Conference is expanding from its Eastern roots.

The ACC presidents and chancellors met Friday morning and voted to add three schools -- Stanford, Cal and SMU, sources told ESPN. It will bring the league to 18 members -- 17 will play football full time in the league. The additions are in all sports and will begin in the 2024-25 school year.

The moves have been the subject of much drama the past month, as commissioner Jim Phillips worked diligently to appease a group of members eager to add the schools and others seeking more revenue. The protracted process ultimately ended with the ACC growing amid a backdrop that brought to light some of the fundamental tensions within the league.

The move unfolded in an atypical process, as typically votes in league matters are cast as unanimous and a formality when the presidents meet to decide. The ACC needed 12 of 15 votes. Heading into the meeting on Friday morning it was uncertain whether or not the league had votes, a significant variance from how conference expansion typically works.

In a straw poll more than three weeks ago, four ACC schools dissented -- Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and NC State. One of them needed to flip for the vote to pass and all eyes entered the meeting on NC State chancellor Randy Woodson.

The focus on Woodson intensified Thursday night when members of the University of North Carolina's board of trustees issued a statement to voice their objection to the additions. That move was perceived around the ACC as a political statement to be sure that UNC chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz didn't flip his vote.

UNC and NC State did not need to be tied together, but some of the uncertainty around Woodson's vote came from the political ramifications of not being aligned with North Carolina.

The ACC joins the ranks of a rapidly changing collegiate landscape. Starting next year the Big Ten will have 18 teams and the Big 12 and SEC will have 16. The move leaves the Pac-12 with just two remaining programs, Washington State and Oregon State, a continued spiral that has included the league losing eight teams since late July.

Cal, Stanford and SMU will come at a significant discount, which will help create a revenue pool to be shared among ACC members. 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.

The move delivers a life preserver to the athletic departments at Stanford and Cal, which were left twisting amid the Pac-12's implosion. Stanford has an athletic department that's considered the gold standard in college athletics. Both will face increased travel costs, which will significantly impact a Cal athletic department that faces hundreds of millions in debt.

For SMU, the decision to forgo television revenue gave it a seat in a major conference and the school will lean on its wealthy boosters to help it stay afloat until revenue comes in. It marks a significant moment for the school's climb back from the death penalty for major infractions that led to the school not playing football in 1987 and 1988. SMU didn't return to a bowl until 2009 after the penalties.


Even with the vote going through, the nearly monthlong saga to decide on the addition illuminated the divisions in the ACC. Both Florida State and Clemson have spoken publicly about how the revenue gap between the ACC and the Big Ten and SEC needs to close.

While those schools had not been supportive of the additions heading into the final meeting, the decision does give them access to millions more in annual revenue if they succeed on the field. With the ACC television contract running through 2036, the past few weeks have highlighted the uncertainty that will linger into the upcoming years.

Florida State officials have been particularly vocal about leaving the league, with president Richard McCullough saying the Seminoles would "very seriously" consider leaving if the revenue-distribution model didn't change significantly. This move by the ACC does not appear to change that tenor.

For other schools in the ACC, the three new schools represent both the addition of quality academic institutions and safety in numbers. Cal and Stanford were the last major conference schools that offered significant value left on the board.
So...a question. What happens to all of the NCAA chits that the Pac 12 earned...but have yet to be paid? Do they now all go to the 2 surviving members? Even though those 2 will also have to find a home before next season...

??
 
Insanity. Consolidate conferences into the football power 4 with no rivalries, coast to coast travel and a watered down product by adding 5 new non power 5 universities (smu, cincy, ucf, byu, Houston). LoL. What are they doing? And the ACC is so desperate.
 
UConn would add 100x more long term value facturing in the travel costs.
There are three certainties in life: death, taxes and UConn getting hosed in conference realignment.

Happy Adam Scott GIF by Sky
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluebeard
UConn offers a big Zero from a football perspective and that is all that is driving the realignment insanity.

No surprise the so called Power 5 wants no part of them.

The Northeast couldn't care less about college football
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluebeard
Desperation move by the ACC to hedge if and when Clemson, FSU and UNC bolt to keep the conference at 15 teams. What the ACC should have done a couple of years ago was to be proactive when Texas and Okla made announcements to bolt to SEC. ACC should have gone after a few teams to strengthen both Football and Basketball before the Big 12 got off the ground and stabilized. Would have made a lot of more sense getting Cincinnati, UCF, maybe even Kansas and Baylor.
 

ACC adding Stanford, Cal and SMU means the conference's days of being an elite basketball league are over​


Cal, Stanford and SMU will make the ACC bigger, but with 18 teams it will definitely not be better​

By Matt Norlander

So, the unwanted inevitable became official in the early hours of Friday morning when 12 out of 15 Atlantic Coast Conference presidents and chancellors decided to panic-add Cal, SMU and Stanford beginning in July of 2024. It was North Carolina State chancellor Randy Woodson who flipped on his initial standing (Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina remained firmly opposed), giving way to overstuff the ACC with three schools that have little business being in this conference.

As I try to wrap my head around another turgid 18-team mega-league (17 in football, where of course Notre Dame remains independent), it's now just dawning on me that things like "Syracuse @ Cal" and "Stanford @ Boston College" are eligible to be conference games starting next year. My god, it's so hideous it's hilarious. What the hell are we doing here, folks.

Let it be screamed that this decision will not age well. We will look up at the end of this decade and find the majority of these realignment maneuvers from the past 26 months will not make college sports better. The ACC's tacky trio could top the list. Sure, there will be perks and some fun matchups that materialize in the too-big-to-flop Big Ten, SEC and Big 12, but major college athletics isn't evolving into a superior edition of itself. The plot has been lost in hopes that money will be able to write a better future. It almost certainly will not.

This is being done in 2023 in a chase for television capital allegedly waiting in the 2030s. But let's face the elephant: Nobody in the TV industry can speak with clarity, conviction or clairvoyance about what the media-rights landscape will look like five years from now, let alone 10 or more. The ACC's deal ends in 2036. NOBODY KNOWS. ACC leadership is attaching itself to Cal, Stanford and SMU in hopes that this can keep them afloat in an ever-increasing race for money — with no assurances that college sports' money will continue to exponentially grow in a cord-cutting world.

It's darkly comical that on the same day that the ACC voted to do this, tens of millions of households that subscribe to Spectrum's cable service are unable to watch any Disney-owned channels (ESPN and ABC among them) on account of a contract dispute.

The three new ACC schools are so desperate to save themselves, they've agreed to significant haircuts on conference revenue through the end of the decade — taking substantially less now than the figures they were promised but passed on previously. SMU is eagerly joining the ACC and has signed off on going the next NINE YEARS without getting any TV revenue share.

You can feel the monkey's paw starting to curl.

Nevertheless, this is the ACC's arrangement for the foreseeable future. It's almost certainly going to be worse off in football. In basketball, there is no question about it: A league that is coming off maybe its worst regular season in history just diluted its product. Arguably the proudest basketball league of them all is losing its footing, while the Big 12, Big East and SEC are positioned to thrive. I haven't spoken to a single ACC coach who is in favor of adding Cal and SMU, but their opinions don't matter in these matters.

How will basketball be affected? Here's an initial peek into the future.

How conference scheduling could look​

If the ACC sticks with 20 league games, the rotation would have three teams play each other twice and the other 14 teams once. This is not ideal for establishing a regular-season champion, but that ship is now out to sea. In this template, traditional rivalries would be protected. But instead of getting the likes of Duke-Florida State and UNC-Virginia two times per season, those would get chopped down to once a year in exchange for road trips against Cal, Stanford and SMU.

Traditional rivalries preserved, contemporary and/or regional ones get whittled.

When it comes to flying across the country to play a conference game, Cal and Stanford would be a double-dip single trip, of course. Per commissioner Jim Phillips on a media call Friday, when Cal and Stanford go East for ACC play, those schools would play two schools in close geographic proximity. How SMU fits in with a semi-congruent schedule and where the geography makes sense remains to be determined. Cal, Stanford and SMU would all play each other twice each season. Beyond that, the closest schools geographically are Louisville, Notre Dame and Georgia Tech.

The 15 ACC schools as of now will make two trips West every four years to Stanford and Cal, Phillips said. What days of the week those games get played has to be figured out. Teams will be looking at a minimum of four days away from campus when playing road games involving Cal, Stanford and SMU.
 
Here is the potential template for a 20-game schedule:

  • Play 14 opponents 1X
  • Play three opponents 2x
  • Cal, SMU and Stanford always play each other 2x
Cal and Stanford would host the same eight teams in a season, meaning the seven other ACC teams (SMU not included) would not travel west. Cal and Stanford would play those seven teams on the road, and then play one eastern school twice.

Scheduling would get a deeper twist if the ACC went to 22 games. So, that begs the question ...

Will the ACC go to 22 conference games?​

Let's hope not, but I can guarantee you this topic has already been informally explored by ACC officials. Bloating to 18 teams means that a 20-game schedule is doable, but 22 brings more in-league opportunities. You'd have five teams play twice and 12 teams play once.


The ACC should absolutely not do it.

Eighteen schools means someone has to finish 18th, and 17th, and 16th. It doesn't strain logic to suggest those schools just might be Stanford, Cal and SMU. What you don't want to do is give the league more opportunities for Quad 3 and 4 games. Those are résumé-saggers and bring down your best teams. Having 18 teams guarantees you will litter your league with results that impede the objective of producing as many NCAA Tournament teams as possible.

The schools hurt most by Friday's news are the ones most likely to be competing for ACC titles — and high NCAA Tournament seeding. Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Miami — you don't want to saddle these teams with more games against mediocre competition. Now, it's inevitable.

It would be in the best interest of the ACC to keep the league at 20 games, giving those schools as many opportunities as possible in nonconference play to bolster their tournament credentials. Therein lies another consequence: Will Duke, North Carolina and Virginia now have to schedule even more aggressively in November and December? That's a great thing for college basketball, but also puts a lot on the ACC's top programs to win big early in order to avoid being held back nationally if/when the ACC fails to break into the top three or four leagues from a metrics standpoint.

This is another downstream effect of why conference expansion worsens the overall product.

As for the ACC Tournament, Phillips said Friday the league is yet to discuss the format and whether or not all 18 teams would play (please no).

"We're going to be, and think, aggressive," Phillips said, and added, "you have to remember where your home base is and where you've had a lot of success."

It used to be that the ACC could count on a lot of success in hoops, but that's now more a hope than an expectation. Just a few years ago, it had three No. 1 seeds in the NCAA Tournament. It's hard to envision that ever happening again. The league was seventh in overall strength at KenPom.com last season — the lowest it's ever been. With Stanford, Cal and SMU coming in to crowd the room at 18 — three schools with four total NCAA Tournament appearances in the past 10 seasons — its days of being an elite basketball conference are over.
 
UConn offers a big Zero from a football perspective and that is all that is driving the realignment insanity.

No surprise the so called Power 5 wants no part of them.

The Northeast couldn't care less about college football
Did Rutgers? What about 1 and 11 Colorado? Did Stanford and Cal become football powerhouses?

I do think we help our "perception" as we return to the football success we found in our first 10 years in DI. It keeps us in the running theoretically, but practically speaking future openings for us look unlikely.
 
Did Rutgers? What about 1 and 11 Colorado? Did Stanford and Cal become football powerhouses?

I do think we help our "perception" as we return to the football success we found in our first 10 years in DI. It keeps us in the running theoretically, but practically speaking future openings for us look unlikely.
Why do you believe are the issues that are preventing UConn from being invited to a P4 conference?
 
Why do you believe are the issues that are preventing UConn from being invited to a P4 conference?
Historically? a bunch of different things. Boston College "wanting to be the New England school" in the ACC when we were originally slated to go in with Syracuse. FSU deciding that it wanted to push back against Tobacco Road control of the ACC when we were slated to go in as the replacement for Maryland. The PAC 12 blowing it up making an abundance of current P5 schools available in this last go round. We've been close but haven't quite made it.

Now, as the incremental amount that is necessary for a school to "bring value" keeps going up it continues to be increasingly more difficult to justify a full share of income.

A decade of being bad at football definitely made us less attractive, but it was never the deciding factor for us. Likewise, we appear to be turning the corner on our football program. I don't think it'll make a material difference either.

Don't get me wrong there are possibilities. Will the big 12 view the ACC crossing the Rubicon and coming into Texas as a move that needs to be reciprocated with them getting a presence on the East Coast? Maybe, but the number of seats available on this game of musical chairs keeps on declining. I don't know that it's going happen for Connecticut.

In the near term, it doesn't matter. We should continue to be able to be successful. In the long term, though, it will.
 
The ACC is pathetic. Basically the middle of the conference has no no long term confidence in the leagues survival and wanted to cash in as much as they can. $4-5 million more a year is not going to make those teams more competitive. The fact that the three most successful programs voted against expansion is all you need to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUisNJsTeam
The stupider the football 5 (or 4) become...the better it is for schools that put basketball #1. The BE right now is in the best position ever to once again becoming the #1 basketball conference.
 
The Big East is at the whim of tv revenue and NIL money. No need to think the conference is smarter than all these other conferences. It could all go south very easily.
 
The Big East is at the whim of tv revenue and NIL money. No need to think the conference is smarter than all these other conferences. It could all go south very easily.
If we and other BE support NIL, the BE will remain elite regardless of football schools
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUisNJsTeam
Did Rutgers? What about 1 and 11 Colorado? Did Stanford and Cal become football powerhouses?

I do think we help our "perception" as we return to the football success we found in our first 10 years in DI. It keeps us in the running theoretically, but practically speaking future openings for us look unlikely.
Dude, love you engaging on our board but this post is hilarious. Success in your first ten years of D1? Come back to us. You were 72-65 from 00 - 10. Don't make me go back and total up years 10 - 20. You'll want to go into a storm shelter seeing those numbers - epic bad. Football success can't be measured in one Fiesta Bowl off an 8-5 season. Yeah 6-7 last year against a weak sauce schedule. Turning the corner with a 14 point L against a marginal NC State Wolfpack squad? You gotta take off the husky blue and white glasses and see clearer.
 
If we and other BE support NIL, the BE will remain elite regardless of football schools
Have you taken notice of the massive support the matching NIL drive has gotten at SHU? And if you’re not worried about a squeeze play put on available Big East basketball time slots by the football schools you’re not paying attention. Of course we could always run to ESPN for help in a pinch.
 
Last edited:
Dude, love you engaging on our board but this post is hilarious. Success in your first ten years of D1? Come back to us. You were 72-65 from 00 - 10. Don't make me go back and total up years 10 - 20. You'll want to go into a storm shelter seeing those numbers - epic bad. Football success can't be measured in one Fiesta Bowl off an 8-5 season. Yeah 6-7 last year against a weak sauce schedule. Turning the corner with a 14 point L against a marginal NC State Wolfpack squad? You gotta take off the husky blue and white glasses and see clearer.
LOL, I love how much realty the Huskies occupy in your head.

During Connecticut's first 10 years it won two conference championships and went to a BCS bowl. That is huge. Then, we went into a decade of epic suckiness. Look I'm not saying that we were on the cusp of a national championship in football, but we were solid team.

2003 9-3
2004 8-7
2005 5-6
2006 4-8
2007 9-4
2008 8-5
2009 8-5
2010 8-5
2011 5-7
2012 5-7
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SHUisNJsTeam
The only thing people have a chance of remembering about UConn football this year is their players running into each other on an end around.
And maybe this:



(Or maybe the one he ran in from 17 yards out. Not bad for a true sophomore.)
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT