NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:38 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 68  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:39 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
MD's president led the charge? I heard it was MD and FSU that were the only two that voted against the increase. That was one of the reasons I thought MD could get it worked down.


According to the ACC's lawsuit against UMD, UMD consented to a withdrawal fee. According to the suit, it was 1.25 year's operating cost for the ACC (roughly $21-22m), done back in '11.

It was then amended to 3x, or that $52m amount in '12. That is where UMD and FSU said no.

Now, according to that suit, some of the schools wanted 3x from the start, but were talked down to that 1.25x amount by UMD's Loh. Considering it went to the supposed originally envisioned 3x with all but UMD and FSU consenting, does that sound like UVA, UNC, and GT are just waiting for the right moment to seek greener pastures, anyone?

If UMD is in a tight one, then the others are downright screwed.


Agreed 100%. It's never sounded to me like most of the ACC schools planned on leaving. The revenue increases would have to be HUGE to offset a 50 million exit fee and based on the numbers freaked posted the other day, they aren't there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:09 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:14 am
Posts: 2
It seems to me that if Maryland didn't like the increase in the fee to exit the ACC, then they should have initiated whatever procedures that they needed to to leave. I assume that they agreed to abide by majority (whether its 51%, 75% or whatever) rule as a condition of being a league member and have an out if they don't like the majority vote.

The antitrust and the "can't sue us in a non-Maryland court" arguments seem like nonsense if they signed even simply drafted contracts with the league. The argument that they are simply exiting after a noxious majority rule vote, however, makes a little more sense to me.

That said, as a Hokie, I hope they have to pay every dime of the exit fee, which will establish an expensive precedent for schools who want to leave the ACC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:00 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
MD's president led the charge? I heard it was MD and FSU that were the only two that voted against the increase. That was one of the reasons I thought MD could get it worked down.


According to the ACC's lawsuit against UMD, UMD consented to a withdrawal fee. According to the suit, it was 1.25 year's operating cost for the ACC (roughly $21-22m), done back in '11.

It was then amended to 3x, or that $52m amount in '12. That is where UMD and FSU said no.

Now, according to that suit, some of the schools wanted 3x from the start, but were talked down to that 1.25x amount by UMD's Loh. Considering it went to the supposed originally envisioned 3x with all but UMD and FSU consenting, does that sound like UVA, UNC, and GT are just waiting for the right moment to seek greener pastures, anyone?

If UMD is in a tight one, then the others are downright screwed.


Agreed 100%. It's never sounded to me like most of the ACC schools planned on leaving. The revenue increases would have to be HUGE to offset a 50 million exit fee and based on the numbers freaked posted the other day, they aren't there.


I disagree, the numbers are there if you go to the B1G or SEC. B1G expected to pay members $35 million a year maybe up to $40 million with new TV contract. Best case, ACC pays their schools $22 million, even if you round it up to $25 mill, over the next 15 years you are getting $100-125 million more. The SEC will soon have a similar deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:22 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
seanbo wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
MD's president led the charge? I heard it was MD and FSU that were the only two that voted against the increase. That was one of the reasons I thought MD could get it worked down.


According to the ACC's lawsuit against UMD, UMD consented to a withdrawal fee. According to the suit, it was 1.25 year's operating cost for the ACC (roughly $21-22m), done back in '11.

It was then amended to 3x, or that $52m amount in '12. That is where UMD and FSU said no.

Now, according to that suit, some of the schools wanted 3x from the start, but were talked down to that 1.25x amount by UMD's Loh. Considering it went to the supposed originally envisioned 3x with all but UMD and FSU consenting, does that sound like UVA, UNC, and GT are just waiting for the right moment to seek greener pastures, anyone?

If UMD is in a tight one, then the others are downright screwed.


Agreed 100%. It's never sounded to me like most of the ACC schools planned on leaving. The revenue increases would have to be HUGE to offset a 50 million exit fee and based on the numbers freaked posted the other day, they aren't there.


I disagree, the numbers are there if you go to the B1G or SEC. B1G expected to pay members $35 million a year maybe up to $40 million with new TV contract. Best case, ACC pays their schools $22 million, even if you round it up to $25 mill, over the next 15 years you are getting $100-125 million more. The SEC will soon have a similar deal.


The thing is, even if you're talking 10 million more a year it will still take you 5 years to recoup the money and that's assuming the ACC doesn't get ND to join full time and help their numbers. And with the way things are going these days, I can't be 100% that an 18 school Big 10 will even be around 5-10 years, it could split.

Maybe the money is there, maybe not. But even if it is, why would all these schools unnecessarily punish themselves by setting up such huge exit fees if they have no plans to stay together? It's not like the fees were set up before all the expansion started.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:22 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1038
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
But even if it is, why would all these schools unnecessarily punish themselves by setting up such huge exit fees if they have no plans to stay together? It's not like the fees were set up before all the expansion started.


Agreed. It makes no legal sense to do what the ACC institutions decided to do if they intended to defect so soon after implementation, and then pursue the matter in court against UMD.

The latest rumor is now on UVA heading over to the B1G. I'll believe it when they, or any of the ACC institutions, publicly remove themselves from the ACC's suit against UMD. Then, and only then, will there be smoke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:29 am 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
But even if it is, why would all these schools unnecessarily punish themselves by setting up such huge exit fees if they have no plans to stay together? It's not like the fees were set up before all the expansion started.


Agreed. It makes no legal sense to do what the ACC institutions decided to do if they intended to defect so soon after implementation, and then pursue the matter in court against UMD.

The latest rumor is now on UVA heading over to the B1G. I'll believe it when they, or any of the ACC institutions, publicly remove themselves from the ACC's suit against UMD. Then, and only then, will there be smoke.


I think it would be more likely that there would be a Big East type issue, where a school is on the lawsuit, then gets and accepts an invitation from another conference, and THEN removes themselves from the suit.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:16 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Phoenix Arizona
ohhokie wrote:
It seems to me that if Maryland didn't like the increase in the fee to exit the ACC, then they should have initiated whatever procedures that they needed to to leave. I assume that they agreed to abide by majority (whether its 51%, 75% or whatever) rule as a condition of being a league member and have an out if they don't like the majority vote.

The antitrust and the "can't sue us in a non-Maryland court" arguments seem like nonsense if they signed even simply drafted contracts with the league. The argument that they are simply exiting after a noxious majority rule vote, however, makes a little more sense to me.

That said, as a Hokie, I hope they have to pay every dime of the exit fee, which will establish an expensive precedent for schools who want to leave the ACC.

pot meet kittle is all can say for a hokie fan that has issues of a school bolting for another league.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:17 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Quinn wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
But even if it is, why would all these schools unnecessarily punish themselves by setting up such huge exit fees if they have no plans to stay together? It's not like the fees were set up before all the expansion started.


Agreed. It makes no legal sense to do what the ACC institutions decided to do if they intended to defect so soon after implementation, and then pursue the matter in court against UMD.

The latest rumor is now on UVA heading over to the B1G. I'll believe it when they, or any of the ACC institutions, publicly remove themselves from the ACC's suit against UMD. Then, and only then, will there be smoke.


I think it would be more likely that there would be a Big East type issue, where a school is on the lawsuit, then gets and accepts an invitation from another conference, and THEN removes themselves from the suit.

I totally agree with you Quinn,
Many schools sign or agree with exit penalties or get added to law suits to show solidarity and then move when a better offer comes along. Virginia Tech comes to mind when signing on Big East law suit and then abruptly bolts to the ACC.

Any of you ACC supporters are in denial if you think sighing an exit fee or get added to a law suit is assurance a schools has not intentions of leaving the ACC.

Per Sango comments, any ACC school will more that recover the fees over a few years due to the huge difference in Big Ten project revenue compared to the ACC.

The ACC is a very tough place for any power league wanting to expand with additional members because the revenue gap is so drastically difference.

The ACC is getting a taste of its own medicine when the conference was always making more money over Big East and could raid at well. Tit for tat.

If the ACC schools want to make every truly believe they are committed to the conference then sign the bloody GOR for the next decade.

Otherwise we non ACC fans will just set back and watch the fun. Take from an Big East supporter over the last decade, ACC you are in for some very rough times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:34 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
A NC court has no jurisdiction to enforce an organizational agreement involving another sovereign state. And visa versa. The ACC agreement, of which Maryland did not vote in favor of, amounts to extortion. Anti-trust issues and freedom to disassociate come into play here. Maryland would be liable for cost incurred to the organization, and 52 million would be excessive. The ultimate settlement may be more like the earlier 21 million agreement minus the 3 million or so revenue disbursements Maryland is due. Certain adjustments could be factored in involving matters such as early departure, if applicable, and certain court costs.
The State court entities may recommend arbitration or future filing shall be done with a federal district court. Counter briefs in State courts in NC and Md. shall challenge jurisdictional authority, and any State ruling favoring the local party would be strong grounds for appeal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:24 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
lash wrote:
Quinn wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
But even if it is, why would all these schools unnecessarily punish themselves by setting up such huge exit fees if they have no plans to stay together? It's not like the fees were set up before all the expansion started.


Agreed. It makes no legal sense to do what the ACC institutions decided to do if they intended to defect so soon after implementation, and then pursue the matter in court against UMD.

The latest rumor is now on UVA heading over to the B1G. I'll believe it when they, or any of the ACC institutions, publicly remove themselves from the ACC's suit against UMD. Then, and only then, will there be smoke.


I think it would be more likely that there would be a Big East type issue, where a school is on the lawsuit, then gets and accepts an invitation from another conference, and THEN removes themselves from the suit.

I totally agree with you Quinn,
Many schools sign or agree with exit penalties or get added to law suits to show solidarity and then move when a better offer comes along. Virginia Tech comes to mind when signing on Big East law suit and then abruptly bolts to the ACC.

Any of you ACC supporters are in denial if you think sighing an exit fee or get added to a law suit is assurance a schools has not intentions of leaving the ACC.

Per Sango comments, any ACC school will more that recover the fees over a few years due to the huge difference in Big Ten project revenue compared to the ACC.

The ACC is a very tough place for any power league wanting to expand with additional members because the revenue gap is so drastically difference.

The ACC is getting a taste of its own medicine when the conference was always making more money over Big East and could raid at well. Tit for tat.

If the ACC schools want to make every truly believe they are committed to the conference then sign the bloody GOR for the next decade.

Otherwise we non ACC fans will just set back and watch the fun. Take from an Big East supporter over the last decade, ACC you are in for some very rough times.


I was one of the few that stated defiantly on here that Texas and Co wouldn't go when everyone said they would and said money would be the reason. It was on ESPN and everything. Seems to be a very similar situation in the ACC, everyone is going to make more in the SEC, B1G, or the B12. I'll eat the crow later if I have to but I'm going to go on record with ACC stays (at least mostly) intact because the ACC knows Notre Dame is joining in the future. That in my opinion is why the Big 10 is trying to strike now hoping to destroy the ACC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Phoenix Arizona
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
lash wrote:
Quinn wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
But even if it is, why would all these schools unnecessarily punish themselves by setting up such huge exit fees if they have no plans to stay together? It's not like the fees were set up before all the expansion started.


Agreed. It makes no legal sense to do what the ACC institutions decided to do if they intended to defect so soon after implementation, and then pursue the matter in court against UMD.

The latest rumor is now on UVA heading over to the B1G. I'll believe it when they, or any of the ACC institutions, publicly remove themselves from the ACC's suit against UMD. Then, and only then, will there be smoke.


I think it would be more likely that there would be a Big East type issue, where a school is on the lawsuit, then gets and accepts an invitation from another conference, and THEN removes themselves from the suit.

I totally agree with you Quinn,
Many schools sign or agree with exit penalties or get added to law suits to show solidarity and then move when a better offer comes along. Virginia Tech comes to mind when signing on Big East law suit and then abruptly bolts to the ACC.

Any of you ACC supporters are in denial if you think sighing an exit fee or get added to a law suit is assurance a schools has not intentions of leaving the ACC.

Per Sango comments, any ACC school will more that recover the fees over a few years due to the huge difference in Big Ten project revenue compared to the ACC.

The ACC is a very tough place for any power league wanting to expand with additional members because the revenue gap is so drastically difference.

The ACC is getting a taste of its own medicine when the conference was always making more money over Big East and could raid at well. Tit for tat.

If the ACC schools want to make every truly believe they are committed to the conference then sign the bloody GOR for the next decade.

Otherwise we non ACC fans will just set back and watch the fun. Take from an Big East supporter over the last decade, ACC you are in for some very rough times.


I was one of the few that stated defiantly on here that Texas and Co wouldn't go when everyone said they would and said money would be the reason. It was on ESPN and everything. Seems to be a very similar situation in the ACC, everyone is going to make more in the SEC, B1G, or the B12. I'll eat the crow later if I have to but I'm going to go on record with ACC stays (at least mostly) intact because the ACC knows Notre Dame is joining in the future. That in my opinion is why the Big 10 is trying to strike now hoping to destroy the ACC.

SJSUFan2010,
I likewise followed the Pac 16 proposal very closely and there is a lot of difference in the potential of ACC schools leaving and the Big 12 block of proposed schools that never left for the Pac 16 proposal.

First of all Texas never wanted to leave the Big 12 and was being dragged by the other schools fearing being left out such as Colorado. U of Texas and its network had direct conflicts with the Pac 12 which was pushing for a Big Ten type network.

Texas A&M never wanted in the Pac 16 as well and eventually ended up SEC. Without Texas A&M, there would have only been one other Texas school in the Pac 16 and Texas did not need or want the Pac 16 money.

The ACC schools are not being ask to leave as a group. There are multiple options for various ACC schools to jump to a better paying and arguably more stable power league.

I see Miami and Clemson having the same fear as Colorado and not wanting to be left in less desirable league and may jump sooner than later.

14 is just not a good number and is very unwieldy. It never worked for the Big East which caused all kinds of scheduling conflicts. Ironically the Big East worked better with 16 schools for scheduling purposes.

I do believe we are heading to four super conference with pods which allow for two semi final and one final conference games advancing into the new four team playoff.

Maybe it would be easier to not think of the ACC going away and just four super conference deciding which schools they want to include in their membership.

Much difference situation confronting the ACC that was confronting the Big 12 with Pac 16 proposal.

You may want to acquire a taste for crow just in case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:59 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
lash wrote:
SJSUFan2010,
I likewise followed the Pac 16 proposal very closely and there is a lot of difference in the potential of ACC schools leaving and the Big 12 block of proposed schools that never left for the Pac 16 proposal.

First of all Texas never wanted to leave the Big 12 and was being dragged by the other schools fearing being left out such as Colorado. U of Texas and its network had direct conflicts with the Pac 12 which was pushing for a Big Ten type network.

Texas A&M never wanted in the Pac 16 as well and eventually ended up SEC. Without Texas A&M, there would have only been one other Texas school in the Pac 16 and Texas did not need or want the Pac 16 money.

The ACC schools are not being ask to leave as a group. There are multiple options for various ACC schools to jump to a better paying and arguably more stable power league.

I see Miami and Clemson having the same fear as Colorado and not wanting to be left in less desirable league and may jump sooner than later.

14 is just not a good number and is very unwieldy. It never worked for the Big East which caused all kinds of scheduling conflicts. Ironically the Big East worked better with 16 schools for scheduling purposes.

I do believe we are heading to four super conference with pods which allow for two semi final and one final conference games advancing into the new four team playoff.

Maybe it would be easier to not think of the ACC going away and just four super conference deciding which schools they want to include in their membership.

Much difference situation confronting the ACC that was confronting the Big 12 with Pac 16 proposal.

You may want to acquire a taste for crow just in case.


Haha will do. It's just, these Miami, Clemson, FSU to the Big 12 rumors have gone on since May. The exit fee increase came after that. If Clemson and Miami really were interested and really were talking with the Big 12 it makes no sense whatsoever for them to vote in favor of an increase. The logic isn't there. Even if you're 85% sure you won't have to pay the exit fee why the risk?

I also would like to point out I had A&M moving to the SEC when no one but Seanbo agreed. And I said the SEC would go to 14 when I was told the money wasn't there. I got banned for saying such "radical" things just a couple months before it went down.

Food for thought, if this really is all about a conference championship and the ACC really was under siege of the Big 12, you know they'd vote along side the Big 12 to allow championships with just 10 teams. You'd probably even get the smaller conferences to go for it too. So that's what? 7-3?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Phoenix Arizona
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
lash wrote:
SJSUFan2010,
I likewise followed the Pac 16 proposal very closely and there is a lot of difference in the potential of ACC schools leaving and the Big 12 block of proposed schools that never left for the Pac 16 proposal.

First of all Texas never wanted to leave the Big 12 and was being dragged by the other schools fearing being left out such as Colorado. U of Texas and its network had direct conflicts with the Pac 12 which was pushing for a Big Ten type network.

Texas A&M never wanted in the Pac 16 as well and eventually ended up SEC. Without Texas A&M, there would have only been one other Texas school in the Pac 16 and Texas did not need or want the Pac 16 money.

The ACC schools are not being ask to leave as a group. There are multiple options for various ACC schools to jump to a better paying and arguably more stable power league.

I see Miami and Clemson having the same fear as Colorado and not wanting to be left in less desirable league and may jump sooner than later.

14 is just not a good number and is very unwieldy. It never worked for the Big East which caused all kinds of scheduling conflicts. Ironically the Big East worked better with 16 schools for scheduling purposes.

I do believe we are heading to four super conference with pods which allow for two semi final and one final conference games advancing into the new four team playoff.

Maybe it would be easier to not think of the ACC going away and just four super conference deciding which schools they want to include in their membership.

Much difference situation confronting the ACC that was confronting the Big 12 with Pac 16 proposal.

You may want to acquire a taste for crow just in case.


Haha will do. It's just, these Miami, Clemson, FSU to the Big 12 rumors have gone on since May. The exit fee increase came after that. If Clemson and Miami really were interested and really were talking with the Big 12 it makes no sense whatsoever for them to vote in favor of an increase. The logic isn't there. Even if you're 85% sure you won't have to pay the exit fee why the risk?

I also would like to point out I had A&M moving to the SEC when no one but Seanbo agreed. And I said the SEC would go to 14 when I was told the money wasn't there. I got banned for saying such "radical" things just a couple months before it went down.

Food for thought, if this really is all about a conference championship and the ACC really was under siege of the Big 12, you know they'd vote along side the Big 12 to allow championships with just 10 teams. You'd probably even get the smaller conferences to go for it too. So that's what? 7-3?

SJSUfan,
Good point on ACC possibly supporting the Big 12 with the push for the NCAA to change the rule and allow 10 member conferences to play a football championship game.

No one should ever get banned from posting opinions unless they are bluntly attacking someone. Which board were you referring too?

I personally wish conferences or power conferences were not allowed to raid each other when in the five power leagues. There are so many schools that want to move up and this could be a method to separate the bigger programs from the others.

The only way to stop the raiding would have been for the top conferences to hire a commissioner (i.e. NFL) and of course each conference commissioner believe they are a “God” (i.e. Slive and Deleany).

I have so many issues with the ACC for raiding the Big East and taking Miami. Why could the ACC have not looked at taking UCF or USF?

The ACC is the primary reason the Big East is in ruins. Of course the Big East did not help matters by retaining the hybrid for so many years.

I believe the ACC is to blame for being under constant threat of losing members because the conference basically started this crap. Before the ACC first raid on the Big East, the SEC expanded with one independent and rescued Arkansas from the failing SWC and was not really a raid. Ditto for the Big Ten with expansion with Penn State because the Big East stupidly did not see the forest for the trees. Since basketball leagues were not all sports such as the Atlantic 10, they deserve to be raided by a league that provided all sports.

The ACC on the other hand tried to destroy the Big East and it could eventually come back to haunt the ACC with the same results.

With the Big 12 GORs signed over for 13 years and constant fear of the Big Ten taking more members, I could see Miami and Clemson jumping ship when the opportunity strikes to land in a more secure environment.

After all, Miami has a history of following the money trail and less face the Big 12 has far more opportunities to generate revenue in the next decade.

If the SEC is only going to make a projected 1.5 million per school on a network, the ACC is not going to save itself by creating a network as well.

Final point, when the ACC Presidents came out with a unified stated without sighing GOR, the writing was on the wall and the ACC is in trouble and will continue to be so. This to me is the primary reason I continue to watch the ACC because schools will jump at the chance, otherwise, those schools would have signed over GOR which is about as much of air tight commitment as you can get.

Oh one more final point, Notre Dame is never going to save anyone school or conference, so forget Notre Dame ever coming to the rescue of the ACC. This I would eat crow as well if Notre Dame ever stepped up and helped someone other than itself. I hate crow so very confident in this prediction because money is the driving force.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
Clemson going to the B12 as a single or coupled move is not happening, unless the ACC is totally shattered beforehand. It takes an understanding of the Clemson mindset, their loyal fans, and South Carolina. If there was an SEC invite, that would be different. The school is not going to toss very long-term traditional rivals or totally jump from their geographic base to a far-flung arrangement that greatly diminishes fan access and expected commonalities. Such may meet the B12's needs and/or desires, but not for the individual University. That is the difference.
There was an article in a major South Carolina newspaper the other day interviewing the new Clemson AD. It is clear Clemson's public intent is with the ACC. They have repeatedly denied B12 rumors and pointly attributed these stories as totally external to the University's participation and without their concurrence.
The biggest revelation, not an announcement, and stated casually, is that Notre Dame will be joining the ACC in all-sports in the not-so-distant future. Implied is that ND is transitioning, re-orienting their scheduling, and ease fully into the ACC, recognizing ND has their own constituents to garner acceptance for full fb membership.
My personal view, though, is that the ACC trusting ND to fully join, and accepting them without full football, have been a mistake. The ACC thinks they could do what the BE could not. ND takes, not gives, and the host conference experiences certain consequences because of it. The ACC brought in the accommodating mentality about ND in adding a host of former BE schools.
The B1G's move on Maryland was, in part, a response to ND's arrangement with the ACC and an effort to strengthen their eastern footprint. Whether or not the B1G tries to go further into the ACC is now the big focus of speculation.
As to the SEC, they have never extracted from the ACC. Certainly that could change with new circumstances. So. Carolina was independent when added. Arkansas came from the old Southwest Conference; and the two recent additions were from the B12, then a conference in conflict.
The B1G and the SEC do a lot of cooperation on some big Florida Bowls as well as other matters. When the SEC added Mizzou, the B1G had already passed on them. While major conferences move on vulnerable and desired schools that seek to go, there's never been a major conference whereby three other major conferences have conspired to divide-up and determine where each goes and where. Rather, there's a lot of piecemeal activity going on as currently happening with the mid-major types.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Sec03, these are certainly rational points concerning Clemson and are valid per what gets stated in public.

The problem with expansion is schools can’t afford to be noble and worry about tradition when it comes to revenue security.

Less face it revenue ability or money which ever your prefer is the driving force of all expansion. Academics, travel, tradition are just afterthoughts in these expansion wars regardless of what one states in public. I am certainly very committed to my company, however, if there were instability in my company or much better revenue, I certainly would have to consider making a move regardless if I had to travel more.

I would be very concerned as a Clemson fan because Florida State is the primary key to ACC football stability at the moment. If you think the ACC is having issues with football perception, losing Florida State would become a most certain death sentence as a power football league.

The Big Ten regardless if the intent has caused individual schools to begin looking out for themselves. The GOR would have fixed this issue with perception and security.

The Big 12 could easily ask Miami and Clemson do you what to join because Florida State is waiting on the Big Ten or SEC. Interested?

Miami is not going to call Clemson and let them know hey guess what we are bailing on the ACC.

Maybe the Big 12 then goes after BYU or possibly a non power school to reach 12 and is OK to just remain at 12.

Then the Big Ten wakes up and realizes Florida State is not a bush league school and gives FSU time to set goals for AAU membership.

Then Clemson is stuck in a league where it becomes again the flagship football school pre Florida State ACC days.

If Florida State is having issues caring a power football league, no way can Clemson or that matter Virginia Tech carry a power league.

Revenue drops in the ACC while SEC is going to practically double the ACC without any more changes.

If your Clemson and looking at competing with U of South Carolina making 34 million compared to your projected 20 million per year, things get very interested in what direction a school may take out of necessity.

I am not sure about politics of South Carolina, however, can’t see the state subsidizing Clemson to complete with the flagship school of that state.

It is a fact the Big 12 is going to make about 10 million more per school compared to the ACC and will bring Big 12 schools closer in revenue to the SEC.

Something that Clemson must think about each day.

Money is driving expansion decisions and not tradition or academics or travel concerns regardless of the public statements that get made.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1018 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 68  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: louisvillecard01 and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group