(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.

It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.

No they didn't.

Yes, they were opposed in 2011, and in 2012, but the facts are UConn simply didn't have anywhere close to the votes for membership, and the reasons UConn has been left out in the cold twice have nothing to do with UConn and more with a number of factors UConn brought on themselves with being total dickwads in the suit against the ACC in the early 2000's at the forefront. There are also factors outside your control. You can't help it you are smack dab in the middle of a college football wasteland as it comes to fans and recruits. We already have two schools from the wastelands to the north....adding a third does nothing but cut the legs out from under the two we already have.

That said, you can put to rest the "Those meanies in Chestnut Hill have been keeping us out the ACC!" foot stomping tantrums. Even if BC voted for you y'all never have, and probably never will have, the votes for membership.

(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.

It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.

Well we are having this conversation because someone has said that through Freedom of Information requests they have seen that the ACC Constitution has within it a "veto" power by in state schools. You are suggesting something farther than that. Do you have anything besides speculation on that?

Granted we havn't Seen the paperwork this person is claiming to have seen but it is still a claim of having seen the paperwork. You are making a statement of something different, why?

(02-03-2013 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.

It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.

Well we are having this conversation because someone has said that through Freedom of Information requests they have seen that the ACC Constitution has within it a "veto" power by in state schools. You are suggesting something farther than that. Do you have anything besides speculation on that?

Granted we havn't Seen the paperwork this person is claiming to have seen but it is still a claim of having seen the paperwork. You are making a statement of something different, why?

Because it's easier to make BC the big, bad bogeyman than it is to face the facts that UConn brings nothing of value to any conference in football, and that is why they have continuously been left out in the cold.

1. Anyone may sponsor a new team in the SEC. In 1992 the Gators sponsored Florida State. As late as 2010 South Carolina expressed its compliance in sponsoring Clemson should they want to join. TV markets changed that. The fans all think there is animosity between the two, but both Spurrier and their president have expressed a willingness to accept the Tigers. Now that attitude doesn't exist at Florida anymore. Kentucky is rumored not to want Louisville. Georgia doesn't want Tech but it has more to do with Tech not being suited for the SEC, although the animosity is there.

2. There is no singular blackball power within the Southeastern Conference. It requires a 3/4's vote for membership. Hence the "gentlemen's agreement myth". Before the additions of Missouri and Texas A&M the escalator clause for the SEC required 2 new market additions for a renegotiated TV contract. Mike Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement that no school from an existing state be placed in nomination until the clause bringing in new additional markets for revenue was met. When he used the term "gentlemen's agreement" he was asking that the first order of business (two new markets) be addressed before other moves were considered. Now it is still the preference of the conference to add new markets if possible, but there is no exclusion to the additions of schools within the footprint.

If Florida State were invited it would require a 3/4's vote for acceptance. If the Gators didn't want them enough schools respect Florida that it would be difficult to pass, but no one school could vote them out. Ditto for Texas A&M with Texas schools, and etc.

But guys, if F.S.U. added enough value in content to the SEC to bring an additional million per team on their contract, and they might well be able to do this, not even the Florida president will vote against a good business move. We are schools that play football, but like the revenue. "This is just business Sonny and you're trying to make it personal."

The SEC will look to add new markets within the scope of what 4 new divisions might deem to be neighboring states. If a team within the existing footprint is selected it will be to balance out the number of additions and to help with geographical groupings. They must however add to the bottom line before they would receive an invitation. The only two that could do that would be F.S.U. and Clemson and Clemson would be cutting it close but as they have been previously calculated they do add. Georgia Tech and Louisville will likely not be considered. Oddly though Cincinnati and Pittsburgh have already been checked for profitability to the SEC via new markets. Pitt is a definite market plus, and Cincinnati would add, just not nearly as much as Pitt.

So the Virginia schools, North Carolina schools, Pitt, long shot Cincinnati, Florida State, and long shot Clemson could all be in consideration should the SEC move to 20. Priorities: Virginia first, Virginia Tech second, North Carolina first, N.C. State second (Duke if we have to), Pittsburgh first, Florida State second, Cincinnati third (new market), then Clemson.

I don't see Georgia Tech, Louisville, and Miami in the mix for SEC consideration.

Now I presently do not feel like the ACC is going to be breached again.

So, I would say that possible acceptable targets from the Big 12 should there be movement there (which I also don't expect anytime soon) would be West Virginia, a Kansas school (KU preferred for Missouri), an Oklahoma school, or a Dallas / Ft. Worth school if we needed one for balancing out the additions.

(02-03-2013 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.

It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.

Well we are having this conversation because someone has said that through Freedom of Information requests they have seen that the ACC Constitution has within it a "veto" power by in state schools. You are suggesting something farther than that. Do you have anything besides speculation on that?

Granted we havn't Seen the paperwork this person is claiming to have seen but it is still a claim of having seen the paperwork. You are making a statement of something different, why?

He1.....I wasn't through a FOIA, it is in the MD lawsuit filing. It's on page 43. Section IV-3 b

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/...hibits.pdf

(02-03-2013 10:00 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.

It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.

Well we are having this conversation because someone has said that through Freedom of Information requests they have seen that the ACC Constitution has within it a "veto" power by in state schools. You are suggesting something farther than that. Do you have anything besides speculation on that?

Granted we havn't Seen the paperwork this person is claiming to have seen but it is still a claim of having seen the paperwork. You are making a statement of something different, why?

He1.....I wasn't through a FOIA, it is in the MD lawsuit filing. It's on page 43. Section IV-3 b

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/...hibits.pdf

Cool, easy enough for everyone to see then. Also makes one think if such details are what some folks might have thought the ACC wouldn't have wanted brought out in public. I wonder what other juicy nuggets of information are in there.

No offense to ECU, but it's hard to imagine any scenario where Wake would sponser their membership. If in the extremely unlikely scenario where the ACC undergoes a massive raid then Wake will back fill the ACC with service academies and private schools like Tulane.

(02-03-2013 09:49 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.

It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.

Well we are having this conversation because someone has said that through Freedom of Information requests they have seen that the ACC Constitution has within it a "veto" power by in state schools. You are suggesting something farther than that. Do you have anything besides speculation on that?

Granted we havn't Seen the paperwork this person is claiming to have seen but it is still a claim of having seen the paperwork. You are making a statement of something different, why?

Because it's easier to make BC the big, bad bogeyman than it is to face the facts that UConn brings nothing of value to any conference in football, and that is why they have continuously been left out in the cold.

There are not enough college football fans (people that are interested in college football that are not alumni) in New England to support two programs.
A wise realignment specialist one said that a conference should never expand with a team whose football stadium does not hold at least the average attendance of that conference. The ACC already has several schools that have small stadiums (Wake, Dook and BC), we don't need another school in the conference that can't seat at least 50,000.
Oh! yea, the lawsuit.

(02-03-2013 10:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 10:00 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.

It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.

Well we are having this conversation because someone has said that through Freedom of Information requests they have seen that the ACC Constitution has within it a "veto" power by in state schools. You are suggesting something farther than that. Do you have anything besides speculation on that?

Granted we havn't Seen the paperwork this person is claiming to have seen but it is still a claim of having seen the paperwork. You are making a statement of something different, why?

He1.....I wasn't through a FOIA, it is in the MD lawsuit filing. It's on page 43. Section IV-3 b

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/...hibits.pdf

Cool, easy enough for everyone to see then. Also makes one think if such details are what some folks might have thought the ACC wouldn't have wanted brought out in public. I wonder what other juicy nuggets of information are in there.

If you think that is a juicy nugget........................................

If ESPN can extend their relationship with the SEC, I would look to some movement between the ACC and the SEC.
ESPN wanted to have their "football" conference and their "basketball" conference to insure inventory into the future.
For markets: the LHN has proven that one school (even the most popular school in the state) can not lure enough of the viewers to support a network, and if ESPN wants to secure Texas (state) to market the SEC network they will have to add one or more schools to the SEC from Texas.
Duplicate schools in the same conference can be a real strength, while situations like Florida/Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech/Georgia, Louisville/Kentucky require advertisers willing to spend twice the dollars to reach an overlapping audience.
I don't see the situation ever being resolved in Georgia, but ther are possibilities in the other 3 states. We are no longer talking about conference compatibility, but rather sports inventory, marketing perception, and advertising dollars. I could see Kentucky, South Carolina and West Virginia all moving to the ACC while Florida State and two western teams move to the SEC (this of course assumes that Notre Dame will indeed remain independent), or Kentucky and West Virginia alone to the ACC while two western teams join the SEC. ESPN gets what they want.....one "football" conference and one "basketball" conference and plenty of inventory.

I don't see that ever happening. It's more likely that ESPN encourages a more formal alliance between the two leagues.

(02-04-2013 08:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN can extend their relationship with the SEC, I would look to some movement between the ACC and the SEC.
ESPN wanted to have their "football" conference and their "basketball" conference to insure inventory into the future.
For markets: the LHN has proven that one school (even the most popular school in the state) can not lure enough of the viewers to support a network, and if ESPN wants to secure Texas (state) to market the SEC network they will have to add one or more schools to the SEC from Texas.
Duplicate schools in the same conference can be a real strength, while situations like Florida/Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech/Georgia, Louisville/Kentucky require advertisers willing to spend twice the dollars to reach an overlapping audience.
I don't see the situation ever being resolved in Georgia, but ther are possibilities in the other 3 states. We are no longer talking about conference compatibility, but rather sports inventory, marketing perception, and advertising dollars. I could see Kentucky, South Carolina and West Virginia all moving to the ACC while Florida State and two western teams move to the SEC (this of course assumes that Notre Dame will indeed remain independent), or Kentucky and West Virginia alone to the ACC while two western teams join the SEC. ESPN gets what they want.....one "football" conference and one "basketball" conference and plenty of inventory.

A shared network accomplishes all of that without the movement and makes more sense. The additions from the West could still come for both the ACC and SEC. Then what was shared property with Fox can become more exclusive property for ESPN in the ACC and SEC where they either own all of the rights, or more of the rights than they do in the Big 12. The same cross rivals being proposed for a Big 12 / SEC alliance would be there for the ACC / SEC alliance. It works either way. The SEC could pick up two, or up to four, of the teams and the ACC could do the same. Make Texas the hybrid deal N.D. has and add 2 to 4 more of your own and there is enough movement to kill the grant of rights.

(02-04-2013 09:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 08:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  If ESPN can extend their relationship with the SEC, I would look to some movement between the ACC and the SEC.
ESPN wanted to have their "football" conference and their "basketball" conference to insure inventory into the future.
For markets: the LHN has proven that one school (even the most popular school in the state) can not lure enough of the viewers to support a network, and if ESPN wants to secure Texas (state) to market the SEC network they will have to add one or more schools to the SEC from Texas.
Duplicate schools in the same conference can be a real strength, while situations like Florida/Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech/Georgia, Louisville/Kentucky require advertisers willing to spend twice the dollars to reach an overlapping audience.
I don't see the situation ever being resolved in Georgia, but ther are possibilities in the other 3 states. We are no longer talking about conference compatibility, but rather sports inventory, marketing perception, and advertising dollars. I could see Kentucky, South Carolina and West Virginia all moving to the ACC while Florida State and two western teams move to the SEC (this of course assumes that Notre Dame will indeed remain independent), or Kentucky and West Virginia alone to the ACC while two western teams join the SEC. ESPN gets what they want.....one "football" conference and one "basketball" conference and plenty of inventory.

A shared network accomplishes all of that without the movement and makes more sense. The additions from the West could still come for both the ACC and SEC. Then what was shared property with Fox can become more exclusive property for ESPN in the ACC and SEC where they either own all of the rights, or more of the rights than they do in the Big 12. The same cross rivals being proposed for a Big 12 / SEC alliance would be there for the ACC / SEC alliance. It works either way. The SEC could pick up two, or up to four, of the teams and the ACC could do the same. Make Texas the hybrid deal N.D. has and add 2 to 4 more of your own and there is enough movement to kill the grant of rights.

Alternatively, I could see separate networks that are sold together as a pair - i.e., one price gets a cable system both networks.

(02-04-2013 12:14 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  No offense to ECU, but it's hard to imagine any scenario where Wake would sponser their membership. If in the extremely unlikely scenario where the ACC undergoes a massive raid then Wake will back fill the ACC with service academies and private schools like Tulane.

If that were the case, I guess Wake would have resigned to making no money versus at least something decent. It would be the death of their athletic programs financially to go that route. But stranger decisions have been made and sometimes values are different.

As for Houston and SMU moving up the list because Wake didn't want ECU ...I don't buy that Wake would trade everything that comes with having an in-state rivalry so they could travel to Houston or Dallas. This scenario seems less likely than what WakeForestRanger posted. A better chance that Wake bails totally for their Southern Ivy league.

(02-03-2013 05:20 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  After reading the ACC consitution with the MD lawsuit I thought the section requiring an in-state sponsor (where applicable) was interesting. Basically, they give a school a blackball they can use for any in-state additions (assuming they are the lone ACC school in the state). Where might this clause come to play? The only current FBS schools sharing a state with ACC schools future and current are (I didn't included SEC and B1G schools)

Florida - USF, UCF, FIU, FAU
North Carolina - ECU
Kentucky - WKU
Massachusetts - UMass
New York - Buffalo
Pennsylvania - Temple

If the ACC is deeply raidied and say WF was the only NC school remaining they would have to sponsor ECU for membership. Pitt would have to sponsor Temple. If FSU left Miami would have to sponsor a Florida addition.

ODU too, in a couple of years. I can't imagine getting into the ACC unless both UVA and VT split. The VA legislature won't go to bat for us as they did VPI.

(02-04-2013 10:20 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 12:14 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  No offense to ECU, but it's hard to imagine any scenario where Wake would sponser their membership. If in the extremely unlikely scenario where the ACC undergoes a massive raid then Wake will back fill the ACC with service academies and private schools like Tulane.

If that were the case, I guess Wake would have resigned to making no money versus at least something decent. It would be the death of their athletic programs financially to go that route. But stranger decisions have been made and sometimes values are different.

As for Houston and SMU moving up the list because Wake didn't want ECU ...I don't buy that Wake would trade everything that comes with having an in-state rivalry so they could travel to Houston or Dallas. This scenario seems less likely than what WakeForestRanger posted. A better chance that Wake bails totally for their Southern Ivy league.

1. I didn't know we had friends in Wake Forest.

2. A "Wake-friendly" private division would likely need 6 or more of the following schools to make sense:

Baylor, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Wake, Duke, Vanderbilt, Navy, Army, Rice

The easy ones: If the ACC is raided then Wake and Duke would make 2. Tulsa would resign from C-USA in about 3.45 seconds. Rice would cream their pants to get out of C-USA to join their peers, making them #4.

The tricky ones: Navy and Army would either both go, or both stay. Both of them may have fickle needs and requirements. SMU may need some convincing to get them to leave the Big East... Tulane would have been infinitely more inclined to do this had they still been in C-USA, but I could almost see the academics within Gibson Hall pull some strings to make it happen anyway...

Likely not happening: Vanderbilt likes the other schools mentioned, but as of right now the $$ is too good to leave. The SEC is doing wonders for their athletic programs...

LOL Good joke: Baylor. Big XII stalwart. Never will leave unless the Big XII collapses - and that simply isn't happening in the next two decades.

It's a cute idea, but making the ACC into an "academic conference" simply isn't happening unless Vanderbilt vacates the SEC - and that would pull the academies and Tulane in with them.

The best jock school of bunch - Baylor - is off the table. That's the real killer.

(02-05-2013 01:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 10:20 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-04-2013 12:14 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  No offense to ECU, but it's hard to imagine any scenario where Wake would sponser their membership. If in the extremely unlikely scenario where the ACC undergoes a massive raid then Wake will back fill the ACC with service academies and private schools like Tulane.

If that were the case, I guess Wake would have resigned to making no money versus at least something decent. It would be the death of their athletic programs financially to go that route. But stranger decisions have been made and sometimes values are different.

As for Houston and SMU moving up the list because Wake didn't want ECU ...I don't buy that Wake would trade everything that comes with having an in-state rivalry so they could travel to Houston or Dallas. This scenario seems less likely than what WakeForestRanger posted. A better chance that Wake bails totally for their Southern Ivy league.

1. I didn't know we had friends in Wake Forest.

2. A "Wake-friendly" private division would likely need 6 or more of the following schools to make sense:

Baylor, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Wake, Duke, Vanderbilt, Navy, Army, Rice

The easy ones: If the ACC is raided then Wake and Duke would make 2. Tulsa would resign from C-USA in about 3.45 seconds. Rice would cream their pants to get out of C-USA to join their peers, making them #4.

The tricky ones: Navy and Army would either both go, or both stay. Both of them may have fickle needs and requirements. SMU may need some convincing to get them to leave the Big East... Tulane would have been infinitely more inclined to do this had they still been in C-USA, but I could almost see the academics within Gibson Hall pull some strings to make it happen anyway...

Likely not happening: Vanderbilt likes the other schools mentioned, but as of right now the $$ is too good to leave. The SEC is doing wonders for their athletic programs...

LOL Good joke: Baylor. Big XII stalwart. Never will leave unless the Big XII collapses - and that simply isn't happening in the next two decades.

It's a cute idea, but making the ACC into an "academic conference" simply isn't happening unless Vanderbilt vacates the SEC - and that would pull the academies and Tulane in with them.

The best jock school of bunch - Baylor - is off the table. That's the real killer.

If Miami does not make it to B12 or any other conference then they could be the best addition of all.

Tulane
SMU
Rice
Tulsa
Duke
Wake Forest
Miami

and if B12 imploded
add Baylor
TCU

:-)

This is fun to talk about, but in all honesty it shouldn't be taken seriously. I don't buy that the ACC is imploding.

An imploding conference doesn't pick up Louisville, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh. Even if 1-2 more get picked off, you have yet another ready-made replacement available in Cincinnati.

I don't think things will get any worse for the ACC going forward - although they might look a bit different.