(10-30-2021 05:24 PM)Statefan Wrote: (10-30-2021 12:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: (10-30-2021 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote: (10-29-2021 12:14 PM)Statefan Wrote: (10-29-2021 10:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: Perhaps this isn't a secret but the first I've heard.
South Carolina has been in "talks" to rejoin the ACC for the last 50 years. The level of mutual interest wanes and ebbs over time. It's a conversation that never ends although I expect nothing to come of it because there are so many interested parties with somewhat divergent interests.
South Carolina brought in former North Carolina football player Eric Hyman as their athletic director to negotiate with the ACC.
He was seen so many times in Greensboro and in Chapel Hill during 2010-11 that the South Carolina administration made up a story to hide his true mission, it suggested that Carolina was trying to steal Hyman from the Gamecocks as their AD, and made a huge deal about giving Hyman a $50,000 raise to keep him in Columbia.
When the talks broke down a few months later and Hyman was no longer useful as a go-between, he (Hyman) packed his bags, left Columbia, and accepted the Athletic Director's job at Texas A&M.
If South Carolina ever was or ever would be interested in rejoining the ACC then it would be because they had wholly given up on competing at the highest levels and simply didn't want to work towards funding the AD to the requisite degree.
They literally have not one single other motivation to go to the ACC.
You have that totally backward. If winning is more important than money they come home, if money is more important that winning they stay in the SEC.
Come home?
South Carolina left the ACC in 1971. They joined in 1953 which means they were there less than 20 years. I know 50 years seems like a blink of an eye for some folks, but that's a long time. Heck, they were independent longer than they were in the ACC.
South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992 and that was nearly 30 years ago.
By contrast, Georgia Tech left the SEC in 1964. They were the last team to leave the SEC. The last team to leave the ACC was Maryland and they certainly weren't the last team to entertain it openly. Heck, folks from Florida State were talking about it publicly a few weeks ago.
The SEC just added 2 of the top economic powers in the entire country, 2 schools that have never had any previous relationship with the SEC. The teams petitioning the ACC for entry include the likes of West Virginia and South Florida. No offense to them.
But y'all let me know the next time winning a few extra games against a couple of teams from a neighboring state is enough to pay the bills. So yes, they want the money.
And Clemson doesn't really have anything to do with it. Sure, South Carolina is directly competing against Clemson, but they are also competing against every major program in the Southeast for dollars, recruits, and media exposure. They will continue to compete against these very same SEC schools whether they play in the SEC or not. Would you rather compete against the best with a superior budget or an inferior budget?
If you think winning games against inferior competition just to inflate your record( and thus give yourself a better shot at a title) is a sustainable strategy then you may want to reconsider. Clemson has been a bit lucky the last few years, but they are clearly in decline. You could tell it a couple of years ago when they got smoked by LSU in the title game. You can certainly tell it this year with fewer impact players on the field. How did they get into a situation where they have fewer impact players? See, the first part of this conversation.
If you'd like to understand that point then ask your friends in Tallahassee about the long term effects of smaller budgets.
Or perhaps ask yourself why dominant schools in a league that was already bringing down more revenue than the ACC would choose a richer league despite the fact all the geniuses online said they were better off in a league that was easier to win.
No, I do not have it backwards.