No one said the fan base did make though types of decisions, you asked.
"Where did you gather they “hate being in the Big 12”?"
I explained it, has nothing to do with their administrations attitude towards the conference.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
"Where did you gather they “hate being in the Big 12”?"
I explained it, has nothing to do with their administrations attitude towards the conference.
Well said. They also went All In on PAC pride. They made that jump from the G5, took some lumps early, and had been competing for conference titles. That said, their rise more or less came during a historic low for USC.
I guess it would be like if TCU was banging the XII drum on the way out. Thankfully we haven’t had to live that.
I was responding to a post that was saying Utah was a no for adding UCONN because they hated BYU and they hated being in the Big 12. Also, in the same post that they would want to go the ACC and bring the west teams with them. “They” being the decision makers. You mentioned fans when fans weren’t being discussed.
You could add Whittingham maybe as well. I really don’t think he dislikes the Big12 or anything, I just don’t think he expects to be in the conference long.
Maybe he’s since clarified his comments but this is what he said soon after the announcement:
“Well, first of all, you use the word permanently, and I can say it’s far from that,” Whittingham said. “I think in two-to-three, maybe five years at the outside, everything is gonna change again. And so this may be just a quick couple years of the game returning, and then everything is blown up again and people go their separate ways.”
Kyle Whittingham Suggest Utah's Big 12 Future May be Temporary
Utah is set to join the Big 12 in 2024 and while many are looking forward to a great future for a 16-team Big 12, one team’s head coach may not be of that mindset. Utah head coach Kyle Whittingham sat down for an interview with Spence Checketts on The Drive, to discuss the Utes’ […]
www.heartlandcollegesports.com
Do you have a link suggesting that Utah would move to the ACC and take the other schools with them and leave the B12? Any inside info. from the decision makers?
The ACC will be dead if ESPN does pull out of the contract, and teams will leave, adding Georgia Southern is not going to get you much in TV revenue, nor would Utah be willing to give up the extra money they will be getting from the B12 to fly across the country ever other week. Getting OSU and WSU is not going to help their case, because the B12 will hollow out the league the moment the B10 and SEC pick the schools they want. The future does not look bright for the ACC, baring a miracle they will not survive.
No, because it doesn’t exist. Which is why I was questioning where the original poster had gathered info that Utah hated being in Big 12 and could be looking to move to the ACC and take teams with them.
It all depends on who is left after the B10/SEC take who they want and what kind of media deal the remainders can get. If it's close, I'd expect both the ACC and B12 to try to poach from each other.
IMO, ACC schools being available is a huge opportunity for the B10 to put pressure on ND. If the ACC leftovers are strong enough to poach from or at least hold off the B12, ND doesn't feel any pressure at all. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the B10 reach of a school or two (NC State, Va Tech, Ga Tech) to kneecap the ACC.
I get what you are saying, but if ESPN pulls out of the media deal after the 2025 season, what reason would there be for the teams not getting an SEC or B10 invite to not move to the B12, with their media deal already in place? Easy to see this becomes another deal like the P12, USC and UCLA are leaving, the league is trying to hold on with Oregon and Washington, but once they decide to move also, then the other 3 schools jump not wanting to get left out. Colorado had already decided to come back once offered. I really cannot see Pitt, Louisville, and a few other ACC risking sticking around without a media deal when the B12 option is there. ND is ND, I am beginning to think the only way they would go to the B10 is if the league offered them a deal like they are getting from the ACC, 5 conference games a year, which the B10 will never do.
Winner.
Similarly: Our fanbase has often made the mistake that our rabid passion translates into value on TV screens.
Agree, if ESPN decides to not renew their ACC deal. I have a tough timing believing ESPN would have interest in any media rights deal with the leftover ACC. ESPN's current ACC media rights investment would be transitioned to SEC and Big12 media rights deals to pay for the ACC teams that move to those 2 conferences. Between the Big12 (approx 60%) and SEC game inventory, seems like ESPN has covered their ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 linear time slots.
I could see ESPN valuing MWC game inventory more than a re-built ACC because of games in Mountain & Pacific time zones to compliment SEC & Big12 game inventory. The MWC current TV deal with CBS & FOX expires after 2025/26 sports year.
Because he's on his 4th different conference (WAC, MW, Pac-12, Big 12) despite having been at Utah the whole time. He's had a front-row seat to almost every era of realignment in the last 35 years. Probably grown a bit cynical about it.
If ESPN opts out, I can't see them shelling out whatever it is to get whichever schools they want in the SEC, losing a few schools to the B10, then turning around and giving the leftovers a deal on par with what they had (and on par with what the B12 has). I could see two factors, though. First being the GOR. It's unclear if the GOR is dead if ESPN kills the media deal, but they might want to come to an agreement to skip having it tied up in courts (also, paying to fight it in courts and potentially losing). Second, how much of a threat are the streamers and how much does ESPN want to keep them out? Schools are resistant to change, and it would be considered a win to stick together as long as they can keep pace with the B12 money-wise.
I see two levers the B10 could use to try to push Notre Dame, one being absorbing a big chunk of their traditional rivals. In addition to Mich, Mich St, Purdue and USC, the B10 could add Stanford, Miami and/or FSU. The B10 could play dirty and limit the opportunities to schedule member schools, kneecap the ACC and basically make life difficult for ND.
He’s also not going to be coaching Utah the next time the Big 12 tv rights are up. Hell, it’s been hinted next year may be his last year. I think what you stated is correct that he just wants to play football and has grown tired of the realignment stuff.
It is not public who the two schools that voted against the UCONN move. It was just my guess it was Utah and Arizona State, the two schools that were the most anti-Big 12 prior to Pac falling apart.
As far as the info on why Utah hates the Big 12, 1SE1ACLONE said as much. The great majority of the Utah posts on their forum, Reddit, and X are negative on the Big 12, that they will run the conference in football, and that they will be out of the Big 12 in 2031. It isn't just one, two, or three posters either.
So yes, one can say that it is just message board posters and not the administration. But do we believe Texas is arrogant because the administration hasn't specifically said that they carry the Big 12? Yes, we do and it because we heard it and like comments from their posters. It was nice for a short time to get be rid of the Texas and Oklahoma negativity and conference growth roadblock, but a mini-Texas has taken the baton.
The difference between Texas and Utah is that Texas had the media value to push their weight around, and the rest of his just had to accept it. Utah doesn’t. They can ***** and complain, but they won’t be driving the decisions like Texas was.
Wittingham is fine in all his statements.
A majority of the Utah fan base were and ARE STILL total idiot punks about this. It's not wearing off either, maybe it will after they play some games win or lose.
Their distaste for BYU has them acting completely irrational, many of them wanted to go back to the MWC. I'm sure most would have picked to be in a geographically stupid ACC even though it was the obvious wrong choice for the future.
I want to be clear. I'm not necessarily suggesting that those schools wind up in the Big 12. But I think the possibility is there to crack the door to uneven revenue sharing within conferences, which TV would love to make the norm. It's the only way they get around paying $100M to Rutgers and Vanderbilt with the system we've got. They've gotta plant a seed somewhere, and just let greed do its thing.
My expectation for FSU and Clemson and any unequal revenue is a short term rental with the primary objective to push the ACC out of a power conference. Ideally, the Big 12 and ACC should merge but the ACC has no interest in doing so.
Just curious because I haven't seen the justification behind that argument.
How can the teeth of the GOR not be dead if ESPN opts out? Sure the GOR of rights is a separate legal agreement, but its about the schools handing over their media rights (the $$$) to the ACC. But if ESPN opts out, I believe that leaves $0 in the media rights piggy bank. Sure the ACC can negotiate a new deal with a streamer or linear entity in hopes the new deal is better or on-par with their current ESPN deal. But the 18 current ACC schools are ALL going to have to approve the new deal. If schools like UNC, UVA, FSU, Clemson, etc. vote down ANY new deal because they have a better offer from the Big10, SEC or even Big12, doesn't that pretty quickly lead to the dissolution of the ACC?
