ACC Schools that are Pro Expansion for Stanford & Cal

GTFLETCH

GTFLETCH

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
2,786
On the other side of the expansion vote are Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and Louisville, the schools Forde and Johnson describe as "most vocal" in supporting the additions of Stanford and Cal.

Link
www.thescore.com

Report: Stanford's, Cal's ACC membership bids fail by 1 vote

Stanford and Cal fell one vote short of surpassing the 75% approval threshold needed to join the ACC, sources told Sports Illustrated's Pat Forde and Richard Johnson.The Cardinal and Golden Bears needed at least 12 of the 15 ACC schools to support the move to officially be offered membership...
www.thescore.com www.thescore.com
 
GTFLETCH said:
On the other side of the expansion vote are Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and Louisville, the schools Forde and Johnson describe as "most vocal" in supporting the additions of Stanford and Cal.

Link
www.thescore.com

Report: Stanford's, Cal's ACC membership bids fail by 1 vote

Stanford and Cal fell one vote short of surpassing the 75% approval threshold needed to join the ACC, sources told Sports Illustrated's Pat Forde and Richard Johnson.The Cardinal and Golden Bears needed at least 12 of the 15 ACC schools to support the move to officially be offered membership...
www.thescore.com www.thescore.com
Click to expand...
thanks and interesting. I am glad our President is smarter than NC State President.
 
GTLiebs said:
Or we've been told not happening.
Click to expand...

That is what I would assume. As much as people like to joke, admins aren't idiots for the most part. And we've seen nothing to indicate that Cabrera or Batt are incompetent -- if anything it's the opposite. And obviously they both do care about athletics.

So if they are advocting strongly to try to shore up the ACC, I assume it's because they know that realistically there is not a better landing place for us in the near future.
 
andrew said:
That is what I would assume. As much as people like to joke, admins aren't idiots for the most part. And we've seen nothing to indicate that Cabrera or Batt are incompetent -- if anything it's the opposite. And obviously they both do care about athletics.

So if they are advocting strongly to try to shore up the ACC, I assume it's because they know that realistically there is not a better landing place for us in the near future.
Click to expand...

I agree. We are probably too far down the pecking order. Should have taken the chance when we had it years ago
 
I still don't understand what the west coast teams bring to the table, except more costly and expensive travel. Any additional tv market is offset by additional shares that have to be divied out. Syracuse vs. Stanford or Cal vs. BC on a Saturday night? no thanks.
 
I still think the political move is being publicly in favor of helping them in, while knowing they won’t have the votes to get in. We don’t get into the Big Ten without some additional West Coast teams joining and the Big Ten wanting a national conference. We don’t get into the SEC likely at all. Make the alliances we need to and stay in the ACC and sue the pants off of those who leave.
 
The Wasp said:
I still don't understand what the west coast teams bring to the table, except more costly and expensive travel.
Click to expand...
Huge brand names, prestige, top academics coupled with athletic tradition

Do you want Stanford or Coastal Carolina
 
justafan said:
Huge brand names, prestige, top academics coupled with athletic tradition

Do you want Stanford or Coastal Carolina
Click to expand...
If it came to a do or die choice between the two it's obviously Stanford. They are one school that would actually raise the academic standing of the ACC. You cannot say that about many - maybe 3-4 schools (Rice, Stanford, Vandy, and maybe Northwestern). However, I'm still not sure that the ACC needs to expand. It's looking more and more to me like short-term thinking as I don't see the business model, as it looks to me, working long-term. Any business model that keeps tossing massive $$$ at fickle spectator sports is bound to fail at some point, though football can probably hold out as long as any.

Every time the money ratchets up and rules change to allow more money into the game, it alienates another chunk of fans - those who really don't want another pro league. Second, everything hits saturation at some point. They are hastening the saturation point, the proverbial top of the S-curve, by adding more and more teams and reducing marginal payouts. Diminishing returns are a real issue. There's a balancing point where income is optimized, but where is it and is it static or dynamic? I'd say it's dynamic. We're already seeing a new generation emerge that is less enthused about football than previous ones. For these and other reasons, I think they've likely poked through the ceiling financially. I don't see it sustaining more than maybe 10 years or so. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?
 
stinger78 said:
If it came to a do or die choice between the two it's obviously Stanford. They are one school that would actually raise the academic standing of the ACC. You cannot say that about many - maybe 3-4 schools (Rice, Stanford, Vandy, and maybe Northwestern). However, I'm still not sure that the ACC needs to expand. It's looking more and more to me like short-term thinking as I don't see the business model, as it looks to me, working long-term. Any business model that keeps tossing massive $$$ at fickle spectator sports is bound to fail at some point, though football can probably hold out as long as any.

Every time the money ratchets up and rules change to allow more money into the game, it alienates another chunk of fans - those who really don't want another pro league. Second, everything hits saturation at some point. They are hastening the saturation point, the proverbial top of the S-curve, by adding more and more teams and reducing marginal payouts. Diminishing returns are a real issue. There's a balancing point where income is optimized, but where is it and is it static or dynamic? I'd say it's dynamic. We're already seeing a new generation emerge that is less enthused about football than previous ones. For these and other reasons, I think they've likely poked through the ceiling financially. I don't see it sustaining more than maybe 10 years or so. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?
Click to expand...
Who gives a F about the academic standing of the conference? We have Louisville in the conference. LOUISVILLE. The academic angle is stupid, particularly when it’s a matter of survival. Our academic standing has nothing to do with what conference we are in. Vanderbilt loses nothing by being in the sec. We gain nothing by Stanford coming to the acc “raising the academic standing.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top