BCS leagues expanding - yeah?

And that's why I still wonder if an amicable separation would be possible. Cal and Stanford in the ACC feels so forced and awkward, and I don't think there's much financial gain in it for the ACC. They really seem to have just thrown a life raft to two esteemed universities, seemingly for moral reasons (although I'm sure the money is at worst a wash) and let SMU slip in while the door was open.

Seems like the ACC might be willing to let them go back to the PAC-whatever for mutual benefit and to not have to deal with the ridiculous travel.

 

I've thought these things before with all this expansion and realignment nonsense and often nothing really happens with it, but with this you would think there has to be some sort of plan to make the conference official that sort of has some kind of bang. The only think I can think of is Stanford and Cal, although that just doesn't seem feasible, but who knows?

But at least from my CSU experience, there are some pretty smart and business-savvy people involved with this. There is a reason it was just these four out of the gate, and honestly, the marketing has been pretty good. It seems mostly positive.

Still, why do this if you just add more MW teams (which they almost certainly still will) or some other off-the-wall smaller school? The objective legitimately seems to be to rebuild the brand. These were probably the best from the MW to do that, although still surprised no UNLV, but where do you go to make the next step? Gonzaga in basketball too, but you need more in football. Have to believe there is a plan. Especially the way this has all been announced. Not that there have been many of those plans over the past 15 years of this craziness.

 

My understanding was that the ACC television contract requires a minimum number of teams(I think 14). Adding Stanford, Cal and SMU did not cost the existing ACC schools a lot of money because the three don't receive television money for a several years but it allows the ACC to retain the required minimum of schools if FSU, North Carolina and Clemson escape. My memory is that 75% of the existing schools had to vote yes to admit the three additional members. FSU, Clemson and UNC voted no. NC State flipped and voted to expand, providing the last vote, because they did not trust UNC to take the Wolfpack along to the SEC or Big10.

I probably have some of the details wrong but I think I have captured the gist of what happened.

 

Why? They're under contract and they bring value, not increase travel costs.

 

Taking six teams suggests a plan to get to eight. Maybe a run at Memphis and Tulane?

 

The ACC's legal arguments about the grant of rights being binding against FSU and Clemson go up in smoke if they just let Stanford and Cal walk since it's obviously not ironclad after all and their enforcement of it against the Seminoles and Tigers would be arbitrary.

 

Everyone remembers what a flustercluck the WAC became when it took on more than it could chew, which led to the creation of the Mountain West.

Gonzaga as hoops only is interesting. But how about pairing it with Hawaii as football only?

 

Those definitely seem like some best of the rest.

 

If it was more than eight in 2026 I'd be surprised. Unless it is a solid, solid next four. Like I said, the plan definitely seems to be a solid rebrand and I just don't see that happening with a bunch of deadweight. Plus, there is a lot of money involved, especially with the MW fees. I would guess the powers in charge already know who the two or four will be, but just wanted to get the marketing off on the right foot with this group.

The fallout from the huge WAC is really interesting. I was a freshman in college its first year. The scheduling was stupid and it stunk not seeing some of the more brand names coming to town. Think of where all the teams went/are now. Utah, BYU, TCU, and SMU all eventually got to power conferences. TCU, Fresno, San Jose State, and Hawaii weren't originally a part of the new MW, but all ended up in it. A team like UTEP, a primary member of the WAC, has been pretty much obscure sense. There are nine current MW teams, even with the BYU, Utah, and TCU departures, that were in it. How much did that conference impact the futures of all of these programs, even almost 30 years later?

But no one wants to go that route again, especially, like I said with a bunch of deadweight and you could argue for better or worse that much of the current MW falls into that, although it has been a fine and successful conference. If you want to advance with a reband of a name like the PAC, though, it has to go beyond that in some way.

 

My guess is those four were announced because they are the only ones who can commit to paying a buyout at this time. Maybe this puts pressure on some combination of UNLV, Wyoming, Air Force (although I think they are AAC bound) or New Mexico to rummage through the couch cushions to buy whatever spots remain.

 

Boise and Fresno have wanted to move up for ages. San Diego gets them a foot back in the door in SoCal.