ACC rumors

[Tater]

They're not. Again, there's one blue blood. LSU. They were great in later part of the 80s, they were incredible in the 90s, they were great in the 00s, they were great in 10s, and now they're back on one of those incredible streaks in 20s. Again, hit rate of 40% of winning it when they get to Omaha. That's unheard of. Texas is 16%. I think you're confusing my take. I'm not saying that Texas or Florida St or Miami or [insert program] isn't a great program or even elite. But those teams had runs with great coaches, just like Dedeaux at USC. And honestly, like I think we can be under O'Conner.

Texas was really good under Gustafson and really good under Garido. They won two national championships a piece. But they haven't won it since 05 and haven't made the championship series since 09. We've made it twice since then and we're not a blue blood.

Florida St was incredibly consistent under Mike Martin, but he didn't win the big one. Same reason Arkansas isn't a blue blood.

Miami was really good Ron Fraser and were really good Jim Morris. They probably underachieved a bit tbh. But they haven't really been there since. They tailed off at the end of Morris and Gino wasn't very good. This new guy may get them back.

Then there's LSU. It took Skip two years to get it rolling and it hasn't stopped since. Skip won it more times between 91 and 00 than most programs have won it. EVER. Texas, who you say is a blue blood has only won it 6 times total. Skip won it 5 in 10 years. Hell Smoke Laval was fired and went to a regional, a super, and two CWS trips in 5 years. Manieri won one and went to Omaha 4 more times. And now there's Jay who's won 2 in 4 years. There's everyone else and then there's LSU. They are the standard. I mean LSU has crap coaches get to Omaha and bad coaches that win it. When they get a good coach, it's over. In other words, the coaches don't really matter because they're going to get there. But if they have a good one it's over. You can't say that about other schools.

Steve, you're conflating "blue blood" with a different definition. UConn ain't a Men's basketball blue blood. LSU ain't a baseball blue blood. They're both an elite team that is currently the best program.

Blue blood have been a top dawg and in contention perenially with multiple titles as far back as anyone alive can really remember.

Plenty of people alive still remember the 50s, 60s, 70s. LSU baseball and Uconn basketball were nothing then.

[BrunswickDawg]

They're not. Again, there's one blue blood. LSU. They were great in later part of the 80s, they were incredible in the 90s, they were great in the 00s, they were great in 10s, and now they're back on one of those incredible streaks in 20s. Again, hit rate of 40% of winning it when they get to Omaha. That's unheard of. Texas is 16%. I think you're confusing my take. I'm not saying that Texas or Florida St or Miami or [insert program] isn't a great program or even elite. But those teams had runs with great coaches, just like Dedeaux at USC. And honestly, like I think we can be under O'Conner.

Texas was really good under Gustafson and really good under Garido. They won two national championships a piece. But they haven't won it since 05 and haven't made the championship series since 09. We've made it twice since then and we're not a blue blood.

Florida St was incredibly consistent under Mike Martin, but he didn't win the big one. Same reason Arkansas isn't a blue blood.

Miami was really good Ron Fraser and were really good Jim Morris. They probably underachieved a bit tbh. But they haven't really been there since. They tailed off at the end of Morris and Gino wasn't very good. This new guy may get them back.

Then there's LSU. It took Skip two years to get it rolling and it hasn't stopped since. Skip won it more times between 91 and 00 than most programs have won it. EVER. Texas, who you say is a blue blood has only won it 6 times total. Skip won it 5 in 10 years. Hell Smoke Laval was fired and went to a regional, a super, and two CWS trips in 5 years. Manieri won one and went to Omaha 4 more times. And now there's Jay who's won 2 in 4 years. There's everyone else and then there's LSU. They are the standard. I mean LSU has crap coaches get to Omaha and bad coaches that win it. When they get a good coach, it's over. In other words, the coaches don't really matter because they're going to get there. But if they have a good one it's over. You can't say that about other schools.

I'm going to disagree a lot. First - LSU doe not have more titles than anyone EVER. That belongs to USC and their 12.
Second, being a blue blood is about longevity and consistency, and market recognition, not just National Titles. If you have multiple Nattys, Multiple CWS appearances, and sustained runs of postseasons over decades, and you are who people think of when they think of the sport - you are a blue blood.

LSU, Texas, Miami, USC, Arizona and ASU are the blue bloods. They've done it the longest, have won the most, and are still consistently showing up in Omaha even if they haven't won in a while. CBB has far more parody in it than any college sport over the past 25 years with 17 different programs having won in that time. You can argue about which of those is the greatest program, but LSU is not in it alone.

[StarkVegasSteve]

I'm going to disagree a lot. First - LSU doe not have more titles than anyone EVER. That belongs to USC and their 12.
Second, being a blue blood is about longevity and consistency, and market recognition, not just National Titles. If you have multiple Nattys, Multiple CWS appearances, and sustained runs of postseasons over decades, and you are who people think of when they think of the sport - you are a blue blood.

LSU, Texas, Miami, USC, Arizona and ASU are the blue bloods. They've done it the longest, have won the most, and are still consistently showing up in Omaha even if they haven't won in a while. CBB has far more parody in it than any college sport over the past 25 years with 17 different programs having won in that time. You can argue about which of those is the greatest program, but LSU is not in it alone.

Texas is probably the only one you could argue with me and I'd relent some. The rest, haven't really been relevant in 20+ years. It's like I said, they had good coaches, but they're not good programs anymore. Like Arizona had a really good run under Jay and a damn good run under Andy Lopez. But what about the end of Kindall or the Stitt era? Same with Arizona St. They were great under Jim Brock and pretty dang good under Pat Murphy. But Esmay and Smith......average. And Bloomquist looks to be more Tracy Smith than Jim Brock.

I mean is anyone going to say that Tennessee is a blue blood? I mean they were really good in the 50s, Delmonico bottled a 10 run from 95-05, and they are elite under Vitello. But I don't see anyone saying they're a blue blood program? Why? They have as many championships this century as Arizona. They have as many CWS appearances this century as Arizona. They've won more championships this century than Arizona St and had more CWS appearances. So by your definition Tennessee is a blue blood. Do you consider them one? I don't. I think they've had two elite coaches that have bottled runs.

Also never said they've won more titles than anyone. I said Skip had a 10 year run where he won more titles than MOST programs. For example, he won more than Miami has ever won. He won more than Arizona has ever won. He won as many as Arizona St has ever won.

[PGHBulldogBG]

LOL@ our fans thinking baseball matters in conference realignment

[FISHDAWG]

Seems like I remember the ACC having an enormous buy out to escape the conference. This alone is preventable medicine

[The Federalist Engineer]

Seems like I remember the ACC having an enormous buy out to escape the conference. This alone is preventable medicine

"The current ACC exit fee for schools looking to leave the conference is $165 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which decreases by $18 million each year until it reaches a flat rate of $75 million in the 2030-31 fiscal year and remains at that level until 2036."

It's a big figure but TAM spent $90M just to fire Jimbo Fisher. I think Bjork found a vulnerable and cognitively challenged widow and snagged the fortune. UNC has Micheal Jordan, he can give them some sneaker money.

[viverlibre]

"The current ACC exit fee for schools looking to leave the conference is $165 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which decreases by $18 million each year until it reaches a flat rate of $75 million in the 2030-31 fiscal year and remains at that level until 2036."

Yes, it will likely be 2030 before any of this happens (unless there is some type of major media rights renegotiation), but that will be here before here we know it. It looks like the Big 12 has it's act together more than the ACC, so the ACC may be the odd man out.

[Quaoarsking]

There's also the possibility of the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 coordinating to all take enough teams away from the ACC that they have a vote and change the buyout rules.

But I don't anticipate that, because even if they all go to 20, that's only 10 teams leaving the ACC (out of 18), and I assume it's more than a simply majority needed.

[Tbonewannabe]

"The current ACC exit fee for schools looking to leave the conference is $165 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which decreases by $18 million each year until it reaches a flat rate of $75 million in the 2030-31 fiscal year and remains at that level until 2036."

It's a big figure but TAM spent $90M just to fire Jimbo Fisher. I think Bjork found a vulnerable and cognitively challenged widow and snagged the fortune. UNC has Micheal Jordan, he can give them some sneaker money.

Isn't Jordan a tight ass with money. He doesn't just give it away. Look up Charles Barkley talking about Jordan not tipping wait staff.

[The Federalist Engineer]

There's also the possibility of the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 coordinating to all take enough teams away from the ACC that they have a vote and change the buyout rules.

But I don't anticipate that, because even if they all go to 20, that's only 10 teams leaving the ACC (out of 18), and I assume it's more than a simply majority needed.

Yeah, Duke or UNC might worth buying out, like help them pay the vig. If you buyout One of them, gives you a 90% chance of getting the other in 2032. Gives you a big option on NC State. Duke has a huge Walmart fan base in the Northeast. They are the Notre Dame of basketball. UNC alone is the load-bearing pillar for the ACC. Even in South Carolina, the word "Carolina" is referring to UNC. The gamecocks are almost a Southern Miss to South Carolina sports fans. The Gamecocks are basically Alumni fans.

If the SEC lets UNC become a free-agent in 2032. There will be a huge bidding war to win versus the Big 10.

[Political Hack]

ESPN will chase the TV markets... so Miami is in. We'll add a North Carolina school and Virginia school too. I could see Miami, UNC, Duke, and VaTech.

Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, & NC State would be the other possibilities. However, money wins. So TV markets win.

[The Federalist Engineer]

50% of all viewership of football is 18 schools. Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Oklahoma are in this group.

In 2024 numbers 8 of top 10 were SEC and only Michigan and Ohio State were the non-SEC. The chart is logarithmic so #1 and #18 are miles apart.

Of this group, Florida State and Clemson are the ACC schools.

Come to think about it, I have never watched an ACC football game, without MSU involvement, since the UVA-FSU game with Ronde and Tiki Barber about 30 years ago.

[Goldendawg]

"They're going to boot us for NCState!"

- some negative nancy (probably) soon

That some on here think we would be OK dropping to a lesser conference and winning is a joke. Without SEC $ we would be USM 2.0 with more empty seats, little interest and many less programs in all sports. Would also hit overall enrollment very hard.

[Political Hack]

50% of all viewership of football is 18 schools. Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Oklahoma are in this group.

In 2024 numbers 8 of top 10 were SEC and only Michigan and Ohio State were the non-SEC. The chart is logarithmic so #1 and #18 are miles apart.

Of this group, Florida State and Clemson are the ACC schools.

Come to think about it, I have never watched an ACC football game, without MSU involvement, since the UVA-FSU game with Ronde and Tiki Barber about 30 years ago.

Viewership is huge, but they want to sell commercials in new spaces too. Florida already has the panhandle, so it makes me question Florida State. Same with Clemson/SC. That said, I think FSU and Clemson are much more closely aligned with SEC schools from a cultural standpoint. I'd be ok with Miami or Florida State. I'd be ok with Clemson too, but I 100% expect them to push in North Carolina and possibly Virginia for at least two teams.

[The Federalist Engineer]

Viewership is huge, but they want to sell commercials in new spaces too. Florida already has the panhandle, so it makes me question Florida State. Same with Clemson/SC. That said, I think FSU and Clemson are much more closely aligned with SEC schools from a cultural standpoint. I'd be ok with Miami or Florida State. I'd be ok with Clemson too, but I 100% expect them to push in North Carolina and possibly Virginia for at least two teams.

Numbers for Laughs:

(1) SEC Championship Game - 16M viewers
(2) Big 10 CG- 10M viewers
---- Poptart Bowl 7M ----
(3) ACC CG- 6M

SEC had 9 regular season games with more viewers than Pop Tarts. The ACC had none.

[Quaoarsking]

I don't see Miami as that great of an add, honestly. I suspect they don't make the "power 2" unless both go to 24. They just don't have that many fans, especially when they're down (which is often).

[Jack Lambert]

Who would think the Big12 without TX or OK would survive longer than the ACC if that happens.