Washington State and Oregon State seemed resigned to their fate of heading the Mountain West. The Mountain West commissioner made it clear they'd be welcome with open arms.

Stanford and Cal seem to still be trying to find a home in one of the remaining power 4 conferences. And Notre Dame seems to be pushing for these two to join the ACC? But it doesn't seem like Stanford and Cal add anything to the ACC except for access to late night Friday and Saturday TV slots for football.

JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Washington State and Oregon State seemed resigned to their fate of
> heading the Mountain West. The Mountain West commissioner made it clear
> they'd be welcome with open arms.
>
> Stanford and Cal seem to still be trying to find a home in one of the
> remaining power 4 conferences. And Notre Dame seems to be pushing for
> these two to join the ACC? But it doesn't seem like Stanford and Cal add
> anything to the ACC except for access to late night Friday and Saturday
> TV slots for football.

The theory I heard re:the ACC was that the ACC’s ESPN contract requires or
somehow incents ESPN to get the ACCN on basic cable in every state where
the ACC operates. California has a *lot* of cable households.

No, I don’t know how a contract between the ACC and ESPN can force a cable
carrier to add ACCN on the basic tier. I don’t really know the details of
how the ACC/ESPN deal works.

Also it may be seen as a logical extension of an ACC/PAC12 alliance that
was discussed a few years back.

At any rate the current local rumor mill is that it’s looking much less
likely after the Presidents examined the deets. And we all know how
valuable and accurate the local rumor mills are when it comes to conference
realignment issues.

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:55:54 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
> JGibson <james.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Washington State and Oregon State seemed resigned to their fate of
> > heading the Mountain West. The Mountain West commissioner made it clear
> > they'd be welcome with open arms.
> >
> > Stanford and Cal seem to still be trying to find a home in one of the
> > remaining power 4 conferences. And Notre Dame seems to be pushing for
> > these two to join the ACC? But it doesn't seem like Stanford and Cal add
> > anything to the ACC except for access to late night Friday and Saturday
> > TV slots for football.
> The theory I heard re:the ACC was that the ACC’s ESPN contract requires or
> somehow incents ESPN to get the ACCN on basic cable in every state where
> the ACC operates. California has a *lot* of cable households.
>
> No, I don’t know how a contract between the ACC and ESPN can force a cable
> carrier to add ACCN on the basic tier. I don’t really know the details of
> how the ACC/ESPN deal works.

Not sure how that works either, but as one of the remaining holdouts for cutting cable, I know that my pretty basic package has both the SEC Network and the ACC Network (would likely be considered in Syracuse's TV zone). But I have to pay extra for Big Ten network.

> Also it may be seen as a logical extension of an ACC/PAC12 alliance that
> was discussed a few years back.

Wasn't there supposed to be a Big Ten / ACC / Pac-12 alliance? Doesn't seem to have panned out so well.

> At any rate the current local rumor mill is that it’s looking much less
> likely after the Presidents examined the deets. And we all know how
> valuable and accurate the local rumor mills are when it comes to conference
> realignment issues.

Probably as reliable as anything I've read. The sources I was reading said Washington/Oregon to the Big Ten was losing steam right before it actually happened.

> The theory I heard re:the ACC was that the ACC’s ESPN contract requires or
> somehow incents ESPN to get the ACCN on basic cable in every state where
> the ACC operates. California has a *lot* of cable households.
>
> No, I don’t know how a contract between the ACC and ESPN can force a cable
> carrier to add ACCN on the basic tier. I don’t really know the details of
> how the ACC/ESPN deal works.

On Xfinity, ACC is on what is one level above basic in ACC states. ("Basic" is just the local channels and maybe an RSN. ACC Network is on the same level as CNN and ESPN would be.) Trying to get it on basic may be one of the reasons it took years for Xfinity to include the channel at all in the first place.

Of course, Comcast may claim that it had no idea that the ACC would include California at some point, and take the ACC to court over this. You have to remember that Comcast has to pay for every household that has the channel, whether or not anyone there will ever actually watch it. (Ever wonder why cable packages have 100+ channels rather than letting you pick and choose which ones you want? This is why.)

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:25:45 AM UTC-7, JGibson wrote:
> Washington State and Oregon State seemed resigned to their fate of heading the Mountain West. The Mountain West commissioner made it clear they'd be welcome with open arms.

The first two real demotions from FBS I to FBS II -- more on the way.

> Stanford and Cal seem to still be trying to find a home in one of the remaining power 4 conferences. And Notre Dame seems to be pushing for these two to join the ACC? But it doesn't seem like Stanford and Cal add anything to the ACC except for access to late night Friday and Saturday TV slots for football.

Can't see it happening.

Mike

> > Washington State and Oregon State seemed resigned to their fate of heading the Mountain West. The Mountain West commissioner made it clear they'd be welcome with open arms.
> The first two real demotions from FBS I to FBS II -- more on the way.

The first thing that needs to happen is for the "FBS I" schools to vote to kick the Pac-12 out of the "autonomy conferences" mentioned in the NCAA Bylaws. Technically, even after it drops down to below 7 schools, the Pac-12 has two years to try to get back up to seven.

Well, that's the second thing that needs to happen, after changing the Bylaws to allow for teams to play more than two non-conference postseason football games - otherwise, it's going to make it hard on the teams in the CFP championship game when they're told, "Er, sorry, but you've already played your two allowed postseason games, so your season is over unless you want something like a 2-year bowl ban plus the loss of eligibility of all of your underclassmen."

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:09:01 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > Washington State and Oregon State seemed resigned to their fate of heading the Mountain West. The Mountain West commissioner made it clear they'd be welcome with open arms.
> > The first two real demotions from FBS I to FBS II -- more on the way.
> The first thing that needs to happen is for the "FBS I" schools to vote to kick the Pac-12 out of the "autonomy conferences" mentioned in the NCAA Bylaws. Technically, even after it drops down to below 7 schools, the Pac-12 has two years to try to get back up to seven.

That will be done for them. There will be no Pac-Anything conference as far as Power 5 is concerned.

> Well, that's the second thing that needs to happen, after changing the Bylaws to allow for teams to play more than two non-conference postseason football games - otherwise, it's going to make it hard on the teams in the CFP championship game when they're told, "Er, sorry, but you've already played your two allowed postseason games, so your season is over unless you want something like a 2-year bowl ban plus the loss of eligibility of all of your underclassmen."

The only reason I don't think the same of this is that I don't know if they're actually ever going to really start a 12-team CFP before there ceases to be a point of any such construct.

Mike