(02-18-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 05:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  This is an observation which needs to be stretched out in application. The conferences, not just a school like Florida State, which chose a configuration to be an easy path are all meeting a demise. And this has been going on since the television rights were opened up to market forces in 1983 by a SCOTUS ruling in favor of Oklahoma and Georgia vs the NCAA.

Prior to that date athletic conferences were fiefdoms where a couple of schools could count on weaker competition to propel them into a head to head match up with the only other brand in their conference of note so that they could go to a major bowl, where they got to dodge somebody else's champion, defeat a good but not stellar team and claim the mythical national championship by beauty contest voting from the Associated Press who were always mindful of how the paper they worked for sold more copy when a local school of interest was crowned champion by the press.

That world gave us the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, and the Orange Bowl as the big ones. The Gator, Sun, and a few others were for good but not great teams. Bowling was an honor before there were dozens of them with ever changing names you could not remember.

After WWII the Rose was a special bowl because it matched two conference champs which was a novel concept back then.

The Big 8 was Oklahoma and Nebraska. The SWC was Texas and whoever rose to challenge them and in the 60's that was Arkansas in the 80's SMU, and others smattered in there in between. In the SEC it was Alabama and whoever rose to challenge them usually Tennessee, L.S.U., Auburn or Georgia. Ole Miss had their shots in the early 60's. Archie Manning just made the games loads of fun to watch in the late 60's.

The ACC was an afterthought for football. And the Big 10 while mostly being Michigan or Ohio State had more contenders than it does today. The PAC 10 was USC, UCLA, Stanford (remember Jim Plunkett and Randy Vataha) and others which would rise from the group particularly Washington.

Notre Dame and Penn State, outside of the Service Academies were the most notable independents until Bobby Bowden put the Noles on the screen by the late 70's and made them a household name in the 80's. The Canes glory years were in the 80's as well. Why? Florida exploded in growth, and both had some truly solid coaches.

Well, that was great for the years between the 50's and 80's. But by the mid 80's TV networks could compete openly for the games and network execs despised all of these 1 or 2 team fiefdoms where the only interesting game of the year was between maybe 2 contenders and the usual champ. Worse was the fact that to get those rights they had to pay for all of the cruddy matchups nobody really wanted to see, and that was in all conferences, including the SEC where 6 or 7 conference games were played and some of the better schools didn't even play each other. And when I say 6 or 7 conference games, I mean in the 60's there wasn't really a set number, just a minimum requirement. Bear used to schedule an extra one against a cellar dweller so if Georgia, which seldom played Bama, was 6-0 in the conference Bama could claim the title at 7-0.

After 1983 the issue became market expansion for TV and preferably with brands which would command more audience attention when playing other brands. Consolidation had begun and joining a conference that was weak to have an easy path to a New Year's bowl and possibly the AP beauty contest was a concept which suddenly became very antiquated.

When conferences like the Big 10 and SEC added what had been contenders in other conferences, or as independents, and got more money for it, the race was on.

Florida State joined a conference which when Miami was added to it should have exploded in value. It didn't. The reason was the core schools were still not football first schools. The Big East schools helped a good bit, but then faded due in part to some demographic shifts and the loss of interest to local pro franchises in all revenue sports. Bowden had an easier path, and the ACC gained recognition and revenue from their addition and that of Miami, and at the time Pitt and Syracuse. Flutie and Phelan had put B.C. on the map but that faded by the 90's.

Now I raise this overview for 2 reasons, both of which have gone unmentioned in the recent FSU vs ACC kerfuffle.

FSU is where they are because at the time they joined the ACC the ACC paid 2 million more than the SEC and that was because tournament revenue was stronger for the ACC as was basketball revenue. Bowden took the path of least resistance for football and the record bore that out. But the ACC took FSU precisely because the balance tilted in favor of basketball tipped when football was suddenly able to air in many places because of the 1983 SCOTUS decision which ended the limited NCAA Game of the Week deal with ABC for just a couple of televised games for all conferences. It was obvious to the ACC leadership that football was about to explode in value and that the only reason basketball had been better rewarded prior to the '83 decision is because it was played on more days of the week than just Saturday. The ACC took Florida State and Miami to exploit their value in anticipation of the growth of football as a revenue sport. The issue for the ACC is they never abandoned their Basketball first mentality which remained intact with their core association. By adding Pitt and Syracuse they actually augmented hoops more than football, though both schools were very credible in football at the time.

The ACC's inability to keep pace was a direct result of not being proactive in seeking other football brands in the 90's while some were still available and by not assisting ESPN in attempting to land them more football branding in 2011.

It is for these reasons that FSU and Miami should particularly be granted some latitude in desiring a move. If the ACC failed to grow a viable football product around two football stalwarts at the time they were added, then I think clearly the actions of the conference have impinged those two schools and their potential and has done so to keep a focus alien to that which these two schools thought they were getting at the time they joined.

Will that matter in court? Who knows, but I doubt it. Where it does matter is in the fan base attitudes which are roundly criticized by many here, but wholly misunderstood. They were sold on the ACC's claims to maximize football revenue for the conference during a period of financial seed change from hoops to pigskin. That promise was not fulfilled. If the milieu is to be understood, the court of public opinion should be much more open to sympathizing with both.

Football unchained was naturally going to lead to brand on brand for the biggest payouts. It will continue to do so to a point. They need their usual cadre of occasional challengers for the major brands to keep their lofty status, and a plethora of networks with 3 sometimes 4 game slots a day are going to need enough games to meet their inventory requirements. Contained within those two points resides the number of schools that will be needed. If Tony Altimore says 18 schools garner 50% of the viewership, then twice that is how many other solid schools, but not top brands are needed to keep the top of the pyramid intact. That means around 54. FSU and Miami and possibly UNC want to be in that number and have a legitimate shot to do so. Virginia Tech is your sleeper out of the ACC. I'd say Louisville because of their sports success, but the Big 10 would be the obvious place if the academic standing was right. And as much as many do not wish to hear it, Kansas brings the most value in synergy as measured by the WSJ and is second only to Notre Dame of the remaining schools unaffiliated with the SEC or Big 10.

To understand how Florida State and Miami got into this position is relevant IMO to their case to get out. They have value and add value in the right conference.

Upon the league’s inception, the ACC champ played the Big 8 champ in the Orange Bowl, and the ACC was definitely NOT an afterthought with national powerhouses like Maryland and Duke, plus post-WWII/pre-ACC SoCon programs like Carolina and W&M (the flagship SoCon program in VA).

The conference effectively de-emphasized football with an SAT rule circa 1960 and the rest is history. So let’s not rewrite it, shall we?

And Miami? It seems you might be thinking of 1980’s Miami. They prioritized their institution over their football program (as they should) the moment they joined the conference, which had been their goal since the 80’s when they restarted basketball. They are totally different from SEC-lite FSU.

What were my timeline parameters? Mostly 60's to 80's until the time of the OU/UGa lawsuits ruling. As to Miami I clearly stated the 80's. There football profile was intended to enhance the ACC value. You sure didn't add them for basketball in the 90's. I agree they are more of an ACC fit post 80's, but that wasn't the focus of my post but it does indicate for reasons of their own they adopted a mindset more in line with the core ACC schools. The history is accurate.

Note I didn't raise Clemson's intermittent rises and falls simply because they are core ACC.

And Esayem, a 4 year span of great success under 1 coach is not a Maryland dynasty, it had never happened previously and really didn't happen since.

And Duke? You have to go back to the old Southern Conference to find anything of relevance in terms of the national scope.

And now for the thing I had to dig to determine. The 1946-7 Rose Bowl was the first to pair the PAC champion against the Big 10. It wasn't until the 1954 Orange bowl that the ACC was paired with the Big 8. I said the Rose Bowl pairing was novel. It was. The Orange Bowl pairing between the Big 8 and ACC came 8 years later and only lasted six seasons. The Rose bowl started sooner and lasted much much longer.

From 1943 to ‘57, Dook was ranked at some point every season and won two NYD bowls.

From ‘49 to ‘56, Maryland was ranked at some point every season, went 2-2 in NYD bowls and won a natty.

The Heels were ranked every season from ‘46 to ‘50, and if it weren’t for a tie vs W&M in ‘48 very well would have won a natty.

Clemson was a solid program and even UVa cracked the top 10 a few times post WWII.

So the notion that the ACC was a post WWII afterthought just isn’t true. In fact, it was widely speculated as a super power conference going forward. Unfortunately, the same thing was expected when Miami and VaTech joined the ranks. Of course, Miami immediately tanked and FSU limped along for a decade. Both could leave and I don’t think a lot of Tar Heels would find their eyes wet

1 Natty at Maryland and 5 good seasons under one coach.
Do you not think I researched your claims? Duke may have been ranked but they weren't top 5. In the world of college football when Bud Wilkinson is sweeping the awards, Woody Hayes, John McKay and Bear are jockeying for them every year, while Ara and the Dan are keeping the Irish up, and Nebraska gets it rolling under Osborne, the ACC was an afterthought. After Maryland's run in the early 50's you had a whole lot of mediocrity until Georgia Tech in 1990. Charlie Pell had a good season or two at Clemson, but he was crooked, and crooked again at Florida and got nailed. Frank Orgel was dirty with him at Clemson and problem at Auburn. During that same time Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn won nattys. Texas was in there for at least one that I can remember.

I'm sure those accomplishments were important in the ACC, but not elsewhere. Not throwing shade here, just being accurate. Until Bobby Bowden you had no legit annual contender in football. Having FSU elevated Clemson. Now you have two. But as I noted two contenders does not a football media contract make without a strong supporting cast.

Post WWII until the SAT rule, the ACC was NOT an afterthought. Being ranked by national media—at any given time during the season—proves this. I’ve ready plenty of articles from the time regarding the conference’s inception and its national perception. I don’t need anything else except the sources of the time.

As far as the Rose Bowl, it was always East vs West. It wasn’t until the Ivy de-emphasized that the Big Ten swooped in for the auto-birth. Bowl games didn’t decide the national champion so the news wasn’t as groundbreaking as some might believe. I’ve read extensively about this as well. Bowls were exhibition games and programs like Notre Dame didn’t even accept an invitation for decades. They really don’t paint the entire picture.

Bottom line, one shouldn’t pontificate about the state of ACC football without mentioning the SAT rule. It’s that important to the history of the conference. Despite that, and as I’ve written about here previously, the ACC scheduled national powers home-and-home across all decades.

(02-18-2024 06:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 05:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  Upon the league’s inception, the ACC champ played the Big 8 champ in the Orange Bowl, and the ACC was definitely NOT an afterthought with national powerhouses like Maryland and Duke, plus post-WWII/pre-ACC SoCon programs like Carolina and W&M (the flagship SoCon program in VA).

The conference effectively de-emphasized football with an SAT rule circa 1960 and the rest is history. So let’s not rewrite it, shall we?

And Miami? It seems you might be thinking of 1980’s Miami. They prioritized their institution over their football program (as they should) the moment they joined the conference, which had been their goal since the 80’s when they restarted basketball. They are totally different from SEC-lite FSU.

What were my timeline parameters? Mostly 60's to 80's until the time of the OU/UGa lawsuits ruling. As to Miami I clearly stated the 80's. There football profile was intended to enhance the ACC value. You sure didn't add them for basketball in the 90's. I agree they are more of an ACC fit post 80's, but that wasn't the focus of my post but it does indicate for reasons of their own they adopted a mindset more in line with the core ACC schools. The history is accurate.

Note I didn't raise Clemson's intermittent rises and falls simply because they are core ACC.

And Esayem, a 4 year span of great success under 1 coach is not a Maryland dynasty, it had never happened previously and really didn't happen since.

And Duke? You have to go back to the old Southern Conference to find anything of relevance in terms of the national scope.

And now for the thing I had to dig to determine. The 1946-7 Rose Bowl was the first to pair the PAC champion against the Big 10. It wasn't until the 1954 Orange bowl that the ACC was paired with the Big 8. I said the Rose Bowl pairing was novel. It was. The Orange Bowl pairing between the Big 8 and ACC came 8 years later and only lasted six seasons. The Rose bowl started sooner and lasted much much longer.

From 1943 to ‘57, Dook was ranked at some point every season and won two NYD bowls.

From ‘49 to ‘56, Maryland was ranked at some point every season, went 2-2 in NYD bowls and won a natty.

The Heels were ranked every season from ‘46 to ‘50, and if it weren’t for a tie vs W&M in ‘48 very well would have won a natty.

Clemson was a solid program and even UVa cracked the top 10 a few times post WWII.

So the notion that the ACC was a post WWII afterthought just isn’t true. In fact, it was widely speculated as a super power conference going forward. Unfortunately, the same thing was expected when Miami and VaTech joined the ranks. Of course, Miami immediately tanked and FSU limped along for a decade. Both could leave and I don’t think a lot of Tar Heels would find their eyes wet

1 Natty at Maryland and 5 good seasons under one coach.
Do you not think I researched your claims? Duke may have been ranked but they weren't top 5. In the world of college football when Bud Wilkinson is sweeping the awards, Woody Hayes, John McKay and Bear are jockeying for them every year, while Ara and the Dan are keeping the Irish up, and Nebraska gets it rolling under Osborne, the ACC was an afterthought. After Maryland's run in the early 50's you had a whole lot of mediocrity until Georgia Tech in 1990. Charlie Pell had a good season or two at Clemson, but he was crooked, and crooked again at Florida and got nailed. Frank Orgel was dirty with him at Clemson and problem at Auburn. During that same time Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn won nattys. Texas was in there for at least one that I can remember.

I'm sure those accomplishments were important in the ACC, but not elsewhere. Not throwing shade here, just being accurate. Until Bobby Bowden you had no legit annual contender in football. Having FSU elevated Clemson. Now you have two. But as I noted two contenders does not a football media contract make without a strong supporting cast.

Post WWII until the SAT rule, the ACC was NOT an afterthought. Being ranked by national media—at any given time during the season—proves this. I’ve ready plenty of articles from the time regarding the conference’s inception and its national perception. I don’t need anything else except the sources of the time.

As far as the Rose Bowl, it was always East vs West. It wasn’t until the Ivy de-emphasized that the Big Ten swooped in for the auto-birth. Bowl games didn’t decide the national champion so the news wasn’t as groundbreaking as some might believe. I’ve read extensively about this as well. Bowls were exhibition games and programs like Notre Dame didn’t even accept an invitation for decades. They really don’t paint the entire picture.

Bottom line, one shouldn’t pontificate about the state of ACC football without mentioning the SAT rule. It’s that important to the history of the conference. Despite that, and as I’ve written about here previously, the ACC scheduled national powers home-and-home across all decades.

LOL! A self imposed governor on the engine of athletics guaranteed mediocrity. Nobody else acted that way. Hey, if it made you feel better go for it. But I bet that crowd would have been amazed at the work around with the African American Studies. Life through baby blue lenses must be better than opium!

And the pyrrhic victory in claiming less than championships as evidence of not being an afterthought elsewhere kind of proves my point. Thanks!

(02-18-2024 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 01:16 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  There will be a settlement when Florida State realizes that they will have to pay what ever amount the ACC asks for agrees Demands Agrees!

fixed it for you : )

No, I fixed it for you.

Skyhawk had it right the first time.

Libertie
Equalite
Fraternite

Napoleon Bonaparte would have had fun with the ACC if he were alive today, IMO.

(02-18-2024 06:44 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 01:16 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  There will be a settlement when Florida State realizes that they will have to pay what ever amount the ACC asks for agrees Demands Agrees!

fixed it for you : )

No, I fixed it for you.

Skyhawk had it right the first time.

Libertie
Equalite
Fraternite

Napoleon Bonaparte would have had fun with the ACC if he were alive today, IMO.

I don't believe in equality, I do however, believe in opportunity.

(02-18-2024 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 05:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What were my timeline parameters? Mostly 60's to 80's until the time of the OU/UGa lawsuits ruling. As to Miami I clearly stated the 80's. There football profile was intended to enhance the ACC value. You sure didn't add them for basketball in the 90's. I agree they are more of an ACC fit post 80's, but that wasn't the focus of my post but it does indicate for reasons of their own they adopted a mindset more in line with the core ACC schools. The history is accurate.

Note I didn't raise Clemson's intermittent rises and falls simply because they are core ACC.

And Esayem, a 4 year span of great success under 1 coach is not a Maryland dynasty, it had never happened previously and really didn't happen since.

And Duke? You have to go back to the old Southern Conference to find anything of relevance in terms of the national scope.

And now for the thing I had to dig to determine. The 1946-7 Rose Bowl was the first to pair the PAC champion against the Big 10. It wasn't until the 1954 Orange bowl that the ACC was paired with the Big 8. I said the Rose Bowl pairing was novel. It was. The Orange Bowl pairing between the Big 8 and ACC came 8 years later and only lasted six seasons. The Rose bowl started sooner and lasted much much longer.

From 1943 to ‘57, Dook was ranked at some point every season and won two NYD bowls.

From ‘49 to ‘56, Maryland was ranked at some point every season, went 2-2 in NYD bowls and won a natty.

The Heels were ranked every season from ‘46 to ‘50, and if it weren’t for a tie vs W&M in ‘48 very well would have won a natty.

Clemson was a solid program and even UVa cracked the top 10 a few times post WWII.

So the notion that the ACC was a post WWII afterthought just isn’t true. In fact, it was widely speculated as a super power conference going forward. Unfortunately, the same thing was expected when Miami and VaTech joined the ranks. Of course, Miami immediately tanked and FSU limped along for a decade. Both could leave and I don’t think a lot of Tar Heels would find their eyes wet

1 Natty at Maryland and 5 good seasons under one coach.
Do you not think I researched your claims? Duke may have been ranked but they weren't top 5. In the world of college football when Bud Wilkinson is sweeping the awards, Woody Hayes, John McKay and Bear are jockeying for them every year, while Ara and the Dan are keeping the Irish up, and Nebraska gets it rolling under Osborne, the ACC was an afterthought. After Maryland's run in the early 50's you had a whole lot of mediocrity until Georgia Tech in 1990. Charlie Pell had a good season or two at Clemson, but he was crooked, and crooked again at Florida and got nailed. Frank Orgel was dirty with him at Clemson and problem at Auburn. During that same time Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn won nattys. Texas was in there for at least one that I can remember.

I'm sure those accomplishments were important in the ACC, but not elsewhere. Not throwing shade here, just being accurate. Until Bobby Bowden you had no legit annual contender in football. Having FSU elevated Clemson. Now you have two. But as I noted two contenders does not a football media contract make without a strong supporting cast.

Post WWII until the SAT rule, the ACC was NOT an afterthought. Being ranked by national media—at any given time during the season—proves this. I’ve ready plenty of articles from the time regarding the conference’s inception and its national perception. I don’t need anything else except the sources of the time.

As far as the Rose Bowl, it was always East vs West. It wasn’t until the Ivy de-emphasized that the Big Ten swooped in for the auto-birth. Bowl games didn’t decide the national champion so the news wasn’t as groundbreaking as some might believe. I’ve read extensively about this as well. Bowls were exhibition games and programs like Notre Dame didn’t even accept an invitation for decades. They really don’t paint the entire picture.

Bottom line, one shouldn’t pontificate about the state of ACC football without mentioning the SAT rule. It’s that important to the history of the conference. Despite that, and as I’ve written about here previously, the ACC scheduled national powers home-and-home across all decades.

LOL! A self imposed governor on the engine of athletics guaranteed mediocrity. Nobody else acted that way. Hey, if it made you feel better go for it. But I bet that crowd would have been amazed at the work around with the African American Studies. Life through baby blue lenses must be better than opium!

And the pyrrhic victory in claiming less than championships as evidence of not being an afterthought elsewhere kind of proves my point. Thanks!

No need to act like that. It’s the truth, and it shouldn’t be ignored when discussing football as a scholar of the sport, which I’m sure you are.

It’s not like the Tidewater down into NC and SC intrinsically didn’t support football or have great players. In fact, the smaller regional programs like ECU and Appalachian State paint a totally different picture. Who fielded the third best program in Georgia? Alabama? Louisiana? Or the second in Ohio? You get the point? Since 1972, the great State of North Carolina fielded seven university division programs and then WCU joined before the split. That’s insane considering Georgia had UGa and effectively a private school in GaTech. Louisiana had LSU. Once again, the devil is in the details here.

So go on, demonize the ACC and blame them for FSU keeping Bowden around too long and missing out on Meyer or Saban. Blame the conference for Miami boosters finally getting caught and having a president clean up their image. Blame the ACC for the fact a grand total of four new programs popped up in FLA and started stealing their depth.

Also, let’s not forget the absolute punching bags in not just the SEC, but every major conference. Back then Mississippi State wasn’t a “power program” just because Bear Bryant kicked their teeth in every season. Football wasn’t rah rah conference crap we see now. For real because of stupid media deals I’m supposed to root for State and Dook? Please

(02-18-2024 08:32 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 05:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  From 1943 to ‘57, Dook was ranked at some point every season and won two NYD bowls.

From ‘49 to ‘56, Maryland was ranked at some point every season, went 2-2 in NYD bowls and won a natty.

The Heels were ranked every season from ‘46 to ‘50, and if it weren’t for a tie vs W&M in ‘48 very well would have won a natty.

Clemson was a solid program and even UVa cracked the top 10 a few times post WWII.

So the notion that the ACC was a post WWII afterthought just isn’t true. In fact, it was widely speculated as a super power conference going forward. Unfortunately, the same thing was expected when Miami and VaTech joined the ranks. Of course, Miami immediately tanked and FSU limped along for a decade. Both could leave and I don’t think a lot of Tar Heels would find their eyes wet

1 Natty at Maryland and 5 good seasons under one coach.
Do you not think I researched your claims? Duke may have been ranked but they weren't top 5. In the world of college football when Bud Wilkinson is sweeping the awards, Woody Hayes, John McKay and Bear are jockeying for them every year, while Ara and the Dan are keeping the Irish up, and Nebraska gets it rolling under Osborne, the ACC was an afterthought. After Maryland's run in the early 50's you had a whole lot of mediocrity until Georgia Tech in 1990. Charlie Pell had a good season or two at Clemson, but he was crooked, and crooked again at Florida and got nailed. Frank Orgel was dirty with him at Clemson and problem at Auburn. During that same time Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn won nattys. Texas was in there for at least one that I can remember.

I'm sure those accomplishments were important in the ACC, but not elsewhere. Not throwing shade here, just being accurate. Until Bobby Bowden you had no legit annual contender in football. Having FSU elevated Clemson. Now you have two. But as I noted two contenders does not a football media contract make without a strong supporting cast.

Post WWII until the SAT rule, the ACC was NOT an afterthought. Being ranked by national media—at any given time during the season—proves this. I’ve ready plenty of articles from the time regarding the conference’s inception and its national perception. I don’t need anything else except the sources of the time.

As far as the Rose Bowl, it was always East vs West. It wasn’t until the Ivy de-emphasized that the Big Ten swooped in for the auto-birth. Bowl games didn’t decide the national champion so the news wasn’t as groundbreaking as some might believe. I’ve read extensively about this as well. Bowls were exhibition games and programs like Notre Dame didn’t even accept an invitation for decades. They really don’t paint the entire picture.

Bottom line, one shouldn’t pontificate about the state of ACC football without mentioning the SAT rule. It’s that important to the history of the conference. Despite that, and as I’ve written about here previously, the ACC scheduled national powers home-and-home across all decades.

LOL! A self imposed governor on the engine of athletics guaranteed mediocrity. Nobody else acted that way. Hey, if it made you feel better go for it. But I bet that crowd would have been amazed at the work around with the African American Studies. Life through baby blue lenses must be better than opium!

And the pyrrhic victory in claiming less than championships as evidence of not being an afterthought elsewhere kind of proves my point. Thanks!

No need to act like that. It’s the truth, and it shouldn’t be ignored when discussing football as a scholar of the sport, which I’m sure you are.

It’s not like the Tidewater down into NC and SC intrinsically didn’t support football or have great players. In fact, the smaller regional programs like ECU and Appalachian State paint a totally different picture. Who fielded the third best program in Georgia? Alabama? Louisiana? Or the second in Ohio? You get the point? Since 1972, the great State of North Carolina fielded seven university division programs and then WCU joined before the split. That’s insane considering Georgia had UGa and effectively a private school in GaTech. Louisiana had LSU. Once again, the devil is in the details here.

So go on, demonize the ACC and blame them for FSU keeping Bowden around too long and missing out on Meyer or Saban. Blame the conference for Miami boosters finally getting caught and having a president clean up their image. Blame the ACC for the fact a grand total of four new programs popped up in FLA and started stealing their depth.

Also, let’s not forget the absolute punching bags in not just the SEC, but every major conference. Back then Mississippi State wasn’t a “power program” just because Bear Bryant kicked their teeth in every season. Football wasn’t rah rah conference crap we see now. For real because of stupid media deals I’m supposed to root for State and Dook? Please

Excellent point - every conference has their version of the Mulkey brothers that get the living snot beat out of them every week by the name programs and then expect the rest of the world to be in awe of them for it. The unpopular truth is that most of the P2 is riding coattails and cashing the TV paychecks. Example: before the Clemson Kentucky bowl game, the UK beat writer asked the Clemson beat writer how he thought Clemson would stand up to a SEC roster. He rightly responded with a pointed question: are we talking about Georgia and LSU or USC, Vanderbilt, and Mississippi State?

(02-18-2024 08:32 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 05:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  From 1943 to ‘57, Dook was ranked at some point every season and won two NYD bowls.

From ‘49 to ‘56, Maryland was ranked at some point every season, went 2-2 in NYD bowls and won a natty.

The Heels were ranked every season from ‘46 to ‘50, and if it weren’t for a tie vs W&M in ‘48 very well would have won a natty.

Clemson was a solid program and even UVa cracked the top 10 a few times post WWII.

So the notion that the ACC was a post WWII afterthought just isn’t true. In fact, it was widely speculated as a super power conference going forward. Unfortunately, the same thing was expected when Miami and VaTech joined the ranks. Of course, Miami immediately tanked and FSU limped along for a decade. Both could leave and I don’t think a lot of Tar Heels would find their eyes wet

1 Natty at Maryland and 5 good seasons under one coach.
Do you not think I researched your claims? Duke may have been ranked but they weren't top 5. In the world of college football when Bud Wilkinson is sweeping the awards, Woody Hayes, John McKay and Bear are jockeying for them every year, while Ara and the Dan are keeping the Irish up, and Nebraska gets it rolling under Osborne, the ACC was an afterthought. After Maryland's run in the early 50's you had a whole lot of mediocrity until Georgia Tech in 1990. Charlie Pell had a good season or two at Clemson, but he was crooked, and crooked again at Florida and got nailed. Frank Orgel was dirty with him at Clemson and problem at Auburn. During that same time Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn won nattys. Texas was in there for at least one that I can remember.

I'm sure those accomplishments were important in the ACC, but not elsewhere. Not throwing shade here, just being accurate. Until Bobby Bowden you had no legit annual contender in football. Having FSU elevated Clemson. Now you have two. But as I noted two contenders does not a football media contract make without a strong supporting cast.

Post WWII until the SAT rule, the ACC was NOT an afterthought. Being ranked by national media—at any given time during the season—proves this. I’ve ready plenty of articles from the time regarding the conference’s inception and its national perception. I don’t need anything else except the sources of the time.

As far as the Rose Bowl, it was always East vs West. It wasn’t until the Ivy de-emphasized that the Big Ten swooped in for the auto-birth. Bowl games didn’t decide the national champion so the news wasn’t as groundbreaking as some might believe. I’ve read extensively about this as well. Bowls were exhibition games and programs like Notre Dame didn’t even accept an invitation for decades. They really don’t paint the entire picture.

Bottom line, one shouldn’t pontificate about the state of ACC football without mentioning the SAT rule. It’s that important to the history of the conference. Despite that, and as I’ve written about here previously, the ACC scheduled national powers home-and-home across all decades.

LOL! A self imposed governor on the engine of athletics guaranteed mediocrity. Nobody else acted that way. Hey, if it made you feel better go for it. But I bet that crowd would have been amazed at the work around with the African American Studies. Life through baby blue lenses must be better than opium!

And the pyrrhic victory in claiming less than championships as evidence of not being an afterthought elsewhere kind of proves my point. Thanks!

No need to act like that. It’s the truth, and it shouldn’t be ignored when discussing football as a scholar of the sport, which I’m sure you are.

It’s not like the Tidewater down into NC and SC intrinsically didn’t support football or have great players. In fact, the smaller regional programs like ECU and Appalachian State paint a totally different picture. Who fielded the third best program in Georgia? Alabama? Louisiana? Or the second in Ohio? You get the point? Since 1972, the great State of North Carolina fielded seven university division programs and then WCU joined before the split. That’s insane considering Georgia had UGa and effectively a private school in GaTech. Louisiana had LSU. Once again, the devil is in the details here.

So go on, demonize the ACC and blame them for FSU keeping Bowden around too long and missing out on Meyer or Saban. Blame the conference for Miami boosters finally getting caught and having a president clean up their image. Blame the ACC for the fact a grand total of four new programs popped up in FLA and started stealing their depth.

Also, let’s not forget the absolute punching bags in not just the SEC, but every major conference. Back then Mississippi State wasn’t a “power program” just because Bear Bryant kicked their teeth in every season. Football wasn’t rah rah conference crap we see now. For real because of stupid media deals I’m supposed to root for State and Dook? Please

The bolded part I did not do. I explained why FSU joined the ACC, and how things changed around them for both the Noles and Conference.

The Italicized part is just you. By the way Mississippi State gets kicked in the teeth all the time just like N.C. State and while the universities are dissimilar since state like WVU is tasked with meeting needs within the state, the two sports programs are very similar in nature. State having won championships in baseball and women's hoops and having had rough times and good times. The thing everyone here needs to grasp is that State fans are beloved at tailgates all over the SEC and genuinely loved as family. My wife and I order preserves from their agriculture department. Their Mayhaw Jelly is fabulous. And if you are ever there you won't beat their Ice Cream. Nobody in the SEC laments Mississippi State's inclusion. And of all of the fans in the SEC those who are frequently more intolerable than others are Vanderbilt baseball fans. They don't mix and blend with the other fan bases. Now Vanderbilt football fans are prized. Why? They are rare as hen's teeth! As the old joke goes, "If someone claims to be a Vanderbilt football fan they are telling you the truth! Who would claim to be that that wasn't?

(02-18-2024 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  That is a notable and plausible point, Skyhawk. There are “interests” that don’t want certain topics introduced as part of conference divorce lawsuits. A court ruling can have implications well beyond a dispute regarding the terms and conditions of a particular school seeking to exit membership in their present conference. If an appeal goes to federal court, added and more global points of contention may emerge, and rulings may impact well beyond the ACC-FSU sparring.

The more people demand the courts settle things for them, naturally the less say any of them will have in the future. The fewer legal entanglements negotiated the greater the freedom all parties will have in establishing their own future.

I've always believed this would end in a settlement, except for 1 aspect. It is the ACC and there is more bluster, demands, and controlling leverage sought there than in most other conferences.

There will be a settlement when Florida State realizes that they will have to pay what ever amount the ACC asks for.

Well, maybe. That's always been the issue. Yes, if FSU really wants to leave, then they'll have to pay whatever the ACC asks for. However, there's a number that's so egregiously high that FSU wouldn't or perhaps couldn't pay it. How high? $500m? $750m? $1b? More? I'm highly confident that FSU would pay $500m and reasonably certain that they'd also pay $750m, but they might argue about the terms of the payback. ie, 20 years instead of 5 or 10 would be a whole lot better for FSU, and that might actually be ok for the ACC, too, as that would provide more income for a longer period of time to left behind ACC schools, the exact opposite of what George Hufflepuff did to the Pac. The ACC isn't necessarily determined to thwart FSU so much as they are determined to do what's best for the other schools that still want to remain in the Conference.

Just putting numbers on a napkin really quick, lets' say the ACC asks for half.

FSU is expecting to upgrade from the $30M zone to the $70M zone. Let's call it $40M a year, half of that is $20M. 2024-25 is too late, so let's say 2025-26 to 2035-36, 11 years.

11 times * $20 M is $220M.

Why the hell should the ACC be cutting FSU a deal? They own FSU broadcast rights, if they want them back they can pay the agreed upon price: the Broadcast revenue for the length of the contract and the exit fee they agreed to. My back of the envelope math has that total around $600 million dollars, though it decreases on an escalator for each year that goes by. If FSU wants to pay less now, hope you enjoy paying interest. Future value really sucks when interest rates are at 9%.

ACC has said what they have been saying since the beginning pay the full amount or shut up. There will be a date when FSU will be able to afford to pay (mortgage) it's way out. That date will be 2030.

(02-18-2024 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  That is a notable and plausible point, Skyhawk. There are “interests” that don’t want certain topics introduced as part of conference divorce lawsuits. A court ruling can have implications well beyond a dispute regarding the terms and conditions of a particular school seeking to exit membership in their present conference. If an appeal goes to federal court, added and more global points of contention may emerge, and rulings may impact well beyond the ACC-FSU sparring.

The more people demand the courts settle things for them, naturally the less say any of them will have in the future. The fewer legal entanglements negotiated the greater the freedom all parties will have in establishing their own future.

I've always believed this would end in a settlement, except for 1 aspect. It is the ACC and there is more bluster, demands, and controlling leverage sought there than in most other conferences.

There will be a settlement when Florida State realizes that they will have to pay what ever amount the ACC asks for.

Well, maybe. That's always been the issue. Yes, if FSU really wants to leave, then they'll have to pay whatever the ACC asks for. However, there's a number that's so egregiously high that FSU wouldn't or perhaps couldn't pay it. How high? $500m? $750m? $1b? More? I'm highly confident that FSU would pay $500m and reasonably certain that they'd also pay $750m, but they might argue about the terms of the payback. ie, 20 years instead of 5 or 10 would be a whole lot better for FSU, and that might actually be ok for the ACC, too, as that would provide more income for a longer period of time to left behind ACC schools, the exact opposite of what George Hufflepuff did to the Pac. The ACC isn't necessarily determined to thwart FSU so much as they are determined to do what's best for the other schools that still want to remain in the Conference.

Just putting numbers on a napkin really quick, lets' say the ACC asks for half.

FSU is expecting to upgrade from the $30M zone to the $70M zone. Let's call it $40M a year, half of that is $20M. 2024-25 is too late, so let's say 2025-26 to 2035-36, 11 years.

11 times * $20 M is $220M.

I think that the difference will be closer to $30m, but let's say that it's $40m. However, FSU isn't some pretty good wanna be football school. They have huge fan support, deep pocketed boosters, and a history of success on the gridiron. What's going to happen to their fundraising when they announce that they're joining the SEC? I think that A&M is a perfect comparison for them. Perhaps their athletic budget won't triple in 13 years like A&M's did ($87m last year in Big 12, $279m in 2023), but their boosters will be similarly enthusiastic about the move and they'll significantly boost their donations once it happens. How much more will it be on a per year basis? $30m? $100m? Probably somewhere in that range IN ADDITION to what they're already bringing in.

So, really, the value proposition for FSU isn't limited to "$30-40m per year in additional Conference disbursements", it's more like "$30m-$40m more from the Conference PLUS $30-$100m more per year from additional fundraising souces motivated by the move". Low end total of $60m, high end $140m. Even taking a very conservative estimate, you could safely predict that it's worth a minimum of $75m per year to FSU to get out. Throw in on top of the that the uncertainty about the long term plans of the P2 and the fear that they might eventually expand again with other schools and leave FSU out forever, and that conservative value should have a bit more thrown in on it, or perhaps you could instead say that FSU should be willing to forgo most or all of that $75m per year to get into the SEC (or B1G) now rather than later in order to lock in their status in the top tier.

$75m a year times 10 years = $750m, and, again, I think that's a conservative estimate of how much it's worth to FSU.

How much would it have been worth to the school to get into the CFP this year instead of getting the stiffarm?

(02-18-2024 11:16 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Just putting numbers on a napkin really quick, lets' say the ACC asks for half.

FSU is expecting to upgrade from the $30M zone to the $70M zone. Let's call it $40M a year, half of that is $20M. 2024-25 is too late, so let's say 2025-26 to 2035-36, 11 years.

11 times * $20 M is $220M.

Why the hell should the ACC be cutting FSU a deal? They own FSU broadcast rights, if they want them back they can pay the agreed upon price: the Broadcast revenue for the length of the contract and the exit fee they agreed to. My back of the envelope math has that total around $600 million dollars, though it decreases on an escalator for each year that goes by. If FSU wants to pay less now, hope you enjoy paying interest. Future value really sucks when interest rates are at 9%.

ACC has said what they have been saying since the beginning pay the full amount or shut up. There will be a date when FSU will be able to afford to pay (mortgage) it's way out. That date will be 2030.

A question is not necessarily rhetorical just because the speaker assumes it is.

(02-18-2024 11:16 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The more people demand the courts settle things for them, naturally the less say any of them will have in the future. The fewer legal entanglements negotiated the greater the freedom all parties will have in establishing their own future.

I've always believed this would end in a settlement, except for 1 aspect. It is the ACC and there is more bluster, demands, and controlling leverage sought there than in most other conferences.

There will be a settlement when Florida State realizes that they will have to pay what ever amount the ACC asks for.

Well, maybe. That's always been the issue. Yes, if FSU really wants to leave, then they'll have to pay whatever the ACC asks for. However, there's a number that's so egregiously high that FSU wouldn't or perhaps couldn't pay it. How high? $500m? $750m? $1b? More? I'm highly confident that FSU would pay $500m and reasonably certain that they'd also pay $750m, but they might argue about the terms of the payback. ie, 20 years instead of 5 or 10 would be a whole lot better for FSU, and that might actually be ok for the ACC, too, as that would provide more income for a longer period of time to left behind ACC schools, the exact opposite of what George Hufflepuff did to the Pac. The ACC isn't necessarily determined to thwart FSU so much as they are determined to do what's best for the other schools that still want to remain in the Conference.

Just putting numbers on a napkin really quick, lets' say the ACC asks for half.

FSU is expecting to upgrade from the $30M zone to the $70M zone. Let's call it $40M a year, half of that is $20M. 2024-25 is too late, so let's say 2025-26 to 2035-36, 11 years.

11 times * $20 M is $220M.

Why the hell should the ACC be cutting FSU a deal?

Well, I'm sketching out what I see as a ceiling on what Florida State could more-or-less afford to pay. I used a wild guess of half of the added TV revenue from moving from the ACC to the Big Ten / SEC.

Quote:They own FSU broadcast rights, if they want them back they can pay the agreed upon price: the Broadcast revenue for the length of the contract and the exit fee they agreed to. My back of the envelope math has that total around $600 million dollars,

I think at that price point there's no deal and Florida STate and the ACC remain in their unhappy marriage.

Everything changes if ESPN declines the option for 2027-36, but pretty much everything would have to change for that to happen anyway

(02-19-2024 07:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:16 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  There will be a settlement when Florida State realizes that they will have to pay what ever amount the ACC asks for.

Well, maybe. That's always been the issue. Yes, if FSU really wants to leave, then they'll have to pay whatever the ACC asks for. However, there's a number that's so egregiously high that FSU wouldn't or perhaps couldn't pay it. How high? $500m? $750m? $1b? More? I'm highly confident that FSU would pay $500m and reasonably certain that they'd also pay $750m, but they might argue about the terms of the payback. ie, 20 years instead of 5 or 10 would be a whole lot better for FSU, and that might actually be ok for the ACC, too, as that would provide more income for a longer period of time to left behind ACC schools, the exact opposite of what George Hufflepuff did to the Pac. The ACC isn't necessarily determined to thwart FSU so much as they are determined to do what's best for the other schools that still want to remain in the Conference.

Just putting numbers on a napkin really quick, lets' say the ACC asks for half.

FSU is expecting to upgrade from the $30M zone to the $70M zone. Let's call it $40M a year, half of that is $20M. 2024-25 is too late, so let's say 2025-26 to 2035-36, 11 years.

11 times * $20 M is $220M.

Why the hell should the ACC be cutting FSU a deal?

Well, I'm sketching out what I see as a ceiling on what Florida State could more-or-less afford to pay. I used a wild guess of half of the added TV revenue from moving from the ACC to the Big Ten / SEC.

Quote:They own FSU broadcast rights, if they want them back they can pay the agreed upon price: the Broadcast revenue for the length of the contract and the exit fee they agreed to. My back of the envelope math has that total around $600 million dollars,

I think at that price point there's no deal and Florida STate and the ACC remain in their unhappy marriage.

Everything changes if ESPN declines the option for 2027-36, but pretty much everything would have to change for that to happen anyway

Oh Well!

This is much bigger than just FSU and The ACC, this affects the other leagues as well.

They all have GOR's of some type.

If I remember correctly The ACC and The Big 12 Grant of Rights are the same. Nearly word for word.
The ACC could quietly let it be known to WVU and others that they would accept them if they wanted to take advantage of the FSU loophole.

Something to think about.

If FSU can exit a GOR with over a decade remaining early, 4 or 5 years would be nothing for Big 12 schools to overcome.

If you don't think what happened with The PAC last year isn't stoking the fires at FSU, you haven't been paying attention. You can bet the eastern most schools of The Big 12 are watching The ACC FSU struggle much in the same way.

(02-19-2024 08:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This is much bigger than just FSU and The ACC, this affects the other leagues as well.

They all have GOR's of some type.

If I remember correctly The ACC and The Big 12 Grant of Rights are the same. Nearly word for word.
The ACC could quietly let it be known to WVU and others that they would accept them if they wanted to take advantage of the FSU loophole.

Something to think about.

If FSU can exit a GOR with over a decade remaining early, 4 or 5 years would be nothing for Big 12 schools to overcome.

If you don't think what happened with The PAC last year isn't stoking the fires at FSU, you haven't been paying attention. You can bet the eastern most schools of The Big 12 are watching The ACC FSU struggle much in the same way.

Most of the Big12 seem content, even WVU whom the ACC never wanted. I don't think they are watching with a purpose to find an escape opportunity, but rather curiosity like the rest of us.

(02-18-2024 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 04:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 11:01 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  That is a notable and plausible point, Skyhawk. There are “interests” that don’t want certain topics introduced as part of conference divorce lawsuits. A court ruling can have implications well beyond a dispute regarding the terms and conditions of a particular school seeking to exit membership in their present conference. If an appeal goes to federal court, added and more global points of contention may emerge, and rulings may impact well beyond the ACC-FSU sparring.

The more people demand the courts settle things for them, naturally the less say any of them will have in the future. The fewer legal entanglements negotiated the greater the freedom all parties will have in establishing their own future.

I've always believed this would end in a settlement, except for 1 aspect. It is the ACC and there is more bluster, demands, and controlling leverage sought there than in most other conferences.

There will be a settlement when Florida State realizes that they will have to pay what ever amount the ACC asks for.

Well, maybe. That's always been the issue. Yes, if FSU really wants to leave, then they'll have to pay whatever the ACC asks for. However, there's a number that's so egregiously high that FSU wouldn't or perhaps couldn't pay it. How high? $500m? $750m? $1b? More? I'm highly confident that FSU would pay $500m and reasonably certain that they'd also pay $750m, but they might argue about the terms of the payback. ie, 20 years instead of 5 or 10 would be a whole lot better for FSU, and that might actually be ok for the ACC, too, as that would provide more income for a longer period of time to left behind ACC schools, the exact opposite of what George Hufflepuff did to the Pac. The ACC isn't necessarily determined to thwart FSU so much as they are determined to do what's best for the other schools that still want to remain in the Conference.

Just putting numbers on a napkin really quick, lets' say the ACC asks for half.

FSU is expecting to upgrade from the $30M zone to the $70M zone. Let's call it $40M a year, half of that is $20M. 2024-25 is too late, so let's say 2025-26 to 2035-36, 11 years.

11 times * $20 M is $220M.

To get to any reasonable financial compromise, you need to have some certainty or commonality (guardrails) about future expectations. Yet trying to financially forecast 10-12 years into the future in this environment is just a fools errand. There are too many industry changing disruptions looming in the shorter term (e.g., discussions of a college athletics breakaway are rampant; cable to streaming transition is rapidly ongoing). Per FSU’s filing, ESPN has the option to unilaterally terminate the ACC media deal up until 2025. Both FSU and the ACC have positioned themselves into existential fights, and there are reasonably plausible arguments on each side because worst case scenarios can happen to each party. IMO, Solomon splitting the baby won’t work.

(02-18-2024 08:32 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 05:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  From 1943 to ‘57, Dook was ranked at some point every season and won two NYD bowls.

From ‘49 to ‘56, Maryland was ranked at some point every season, went 2-2 in NYD bowls and won a natty.

The Heels were ranked every season from ‘46 to ‘50, and if it weren’t for a tie vs W&M in ‘48 very well would have won a natty.

Clemson was a solid program and even UVa cracked the top 10 a few times post WWII.

So the notion that the ACC was a post WWII afterthought just isn’t true. In fact, it was widely speculated as a super power conference going forward. Unfortunately, the same thing was expected when Miami and VaTech joined the ranks. Of course, Miami immediately tanked and FSU limped along for a decade. Both could leave and I don’t think a lot of Tar Heels would find their eyes wet

1 Natty at Maryland and 5 good seasons under one coach.
Do you not think I researched your claims? Duke may have been ranked but they weren't top 5. In the world of college football when Bud Wilkinson is sweeping the awards, Woody Hayes, John McKay and Bear are jockeying for them every year, while Ara and the Dan are keeping the Irish up, and Nebraska gets it rolling under Osborne, the ACC was an afterthought. After Maryland's run in the early 50's you had a whole lot of mediocrity until Georgia Tech in 1990. Charlie Pell had a good season or two at Clemson, but he was crooked, and crooked again at Florida and got nailed. Frank Orgel was dirty with him at Clemson and problem at Auburn. During that same time Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn won nattys. Texas was in there for at least one that I can remember.

I'm sure those accomplishments were important in the ACC, but not elsewhere. Not throwing shade here, just being accurate. Until Bobby Bowden you had no legit annual contender in football. Having FSU elevated Clemson. Now you have two. But as I noted two contenders does not a football media contract make without a strong supporting cast.

Post WWII until the SAT rule, the ACC was NOT an afterthought. Being ranked by national media—at any given time during the season—proves this. I’ve ready plenty of articles from the time regarding the conference’s inception and its national perception. I don’t need anything else except the sources of the time.

As far as the Rose Bowl, it was always East vs West. It wasn’t until the Ivy de-emphasized that the Big Ten swooped in for the auto-birth. Bowl games didn’t decide the national champion so the news wasn’t as groundbreaking as some might believe. I’ve read extensively about this as well. Bowls were exhibition games and programs like Notre Dame didn’t even accept an invitation for decades. They really don’t paint the entire picture.

Bottom line, one shouldn’t pontificate about the state of ACC football without mentioning the SAT rule. It’s that important to the history of the conference. Despite that, and as I’ve written about here previously, the ACC scheduled national powers home-and-home across all decades.

LOL! A self imposed governor on the engine of athletics guaranteed mediocrity. Nobody else acted that way. Hey, if it made you feel better go for it. But I bet that crowd would have been amazed at the work around with the African American Studies. Life through baby blue lenses must be better than opium!

And the pyrrhic victory in claiming less than championships as evidence of not being an afterthought elsewhere kind of proves my point. Thanks!

No need to act like that. It’s the truth, and it shouldn’t be ignored when discussing football as a scholar of the sport, which I’m sure you are.

It’s not like the Tidewater down into NC and SC intrinsically didn’t support football or have great players. In fact, the smaller regional programs like ECU and Appalachian State paint a totally different picture. Who fielded the third best program in Georgia? Alabama? Louisiana? Or the second in Ohio? You get the point? Since 1972, the great State of North Carolina fielded seven university division programs and then WCU joined before the split. That’s insane considering Georgia had UGa and effectively a private school in GaTech. Louisiana had LSU. Once again, the devil is in the details here.

So go on, demonize the ACC and blame them for FSU keeping Bowden around too long and missing out on Meyer or Saban. Blame the conference for Miami boosters finally getting caught and having a president clean up their image. Blame the ACC for the fact a grand total of four new programs popped up in FLA and started stealing their depth.

Also, let’s not forget the absolute punching bags in not just the SEC, but every major conference. Back then Mississippi State wasn’t a “power program” just because Bear Bryant kicked their teeth in every season. Football wasn’t rah rah conference crap we see now. For real because of stupid media deals I’m supposed to root for State and Dook? Please

About the bolded, IMO the conference-focus was always there to an extent, but really manifested during the major bowls, when it would be PAC 8 vs Big 10, etc.

That said, I agree this conference focus was nothing like today. IMO it was the BCS that started it, even though the BCS was set up explicitly as a school-level thing with no conference guarantees. Nevertheless, once the BCS started, invidious comparisons about which conferences were placing teams in the title game, and in the at-large BCS bowl games, became a prominent thing. The big media deals of the late 2000s then exacerbated that.

As a Notre Dame fan growing up in the 1970s, if I saw Mississippi State, Purdue, Washington or Maryland on the schedule, I assumed ND had scheduled those teams as quasi-cupcakes. They did not have the "power conference" sheen they have today. So I agree about that too.

Back then, "power", if the term was used at all, referred to just the 10 - 15 top brands, the blue-bloods who dominated, not to conferences. Maybe with the emerging P2 we are going back to those days.

(02-18-2024 01:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think at that price point there's no deal and Florida STate and the ACC remain in their unhappy marriage.

Everything changes if ESPN declines the option for 2027-36, but pretty much everything would have to change for that to happen anyway

If the ACC and Florida St. settle for about half of the estimated media distributions and exit fees, say about $275-$300 million, the ACC saves tens of millions of dollars on attorney fees. If the ACC wants to remain in this unhappy marriage, the other schools get nothing extra, and have to foot the bill for attorney fees.

Of the ACC wants to continue this misery, I suppose that is their right. Perhaps they thrive on their and others’ misery. Heck, couples have stayed in longer and unhappier marriages. But sometimes I pretend that a significant part of a conference is the interest of its member schools. If my proposal was put up for a vote by the presidents/chancellors of the ACC, I believe a majority would vote yes, and say good riddance.

NJTerp

(02-19-2024 10:16 AM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 01:16 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think at that price point there's no deal and Florida STate and the ACC remain in their unhappy marriage.

Everything changes if ESPN declines the option for 2027-36, but pretty much everything would have to change for that to happen anyway

If the ACC and Florida St. settle for about half of the estimated media distributions and exit fees, say about $275-$300 million, the ACC saves tens of millions of dollars on attorney fees. If the ACC wants to remain in this unhappy marriage, the other schools get nothing extra, and have to foot the bill for attorney fees.

Of the ACC wants to continue this misery, I suppose that is their right. Perhaps they thrive on their and others’ misery. Heck, couples have stayed in longer and unhappier marriages. But sometimes I pretend that a significant part of a conference is the interest of its member schools. If my proposal was put up for a vote by the presidents/chancellors of the ACC, I believe a majority would vote yes, and say good riddance.

NJTerp

Saves tens of millions to lose hundreds of millions. FSU can bluster till they are blue in the face, pay up or shut up.

(02-19-2024 09:06 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(02-19-2024 08:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This is much bigger than just FSU and The ACC, this affects the other leagues as well.

They all have GOR's of some type.

If I remember correctly The ACC and The Big 12 Grant of Rights are the same. Nearly word for word.
The ACC could quietly let it be known to WVU and others that they would accept them if they wanted to take advantage of the FSU loophole.

Something to think about.

If FSU can exit a GOR with over a decade remaining early, 4 or 5 years would be nothing for Big 12 schools to overcome.

If you don't think what happened with The PAC last year isn't stoking the fires at FSU, you haven't been paying attention. You can bet the eastern most schools of The Big 12 are watching The ACC FSU struggle much in the same way.

Most of the Big12 seem content, even WVU whom the ACC never wanted. I don't think they are watching with a purpose to find an escape opportunity, but rather curiosity like the rest of us.

I agree. IMO it is because the nB12 schools don't have better prospects. Some of them might be wanted by the ACC, but at this point that is basically a lateral move so not worth making, especially not with ACC instability surrounding FSU.

It is IMO instructive that you mention WV. Until last year or so, I think WV would have jumped at the chance to join the ACC, they always have preferred them to the Big 12 and it was always a sore spot with them that their hoity-toity geographic neighbors in the ACC didn't want them. But I agree, not anymore. That shows how the ACC has fallen.

And there is no indication that the P2 want any of them. So, no issues with the GOR, methinks.

(02-19-2024 10:16 AM)Pat125 Wrote:  

(02-18-2024 01:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think at that price point there's no deal and Florida STate and the ACC remain in their unhappy marriage.

Everything changes if ESPN declines the option for 2027-36, but pretty much everything would have to change for that to happen anyway

If the ACC and Florida St. settle for about half of the estimated media distributions and exit fees, say about $275-$300 million, the ACC saves tens of millions of dollars on attorney fees. If the ACC wants to remain in this unhappy marriage, the other schools get nothing extra, and have to foot the bill for attorney fees.

Of the ACC wants to continue this misery, I suppose that is their right. Perhaps they thrive on their and others’ misery. Heck, couples have stayed in longer and unhappier marriages. But sometimes I pretend that a significant part of a conference is the interest of its member schools. If my proposal was put up for a vote by the presidents/chancellors of the ACC, I believe a majority would vote yes, and say good riddance.

NJTerp

I agree that FSU and the ACC should settle, but IMO $275m to $300m is still too much.

FWIW, I wouldn't want my school holding another school with better prospects hostage via a GOR or anything else. For example, if in 2021 the AAC had had a GOR until 2040, and the nB12 wanted UCF and Cincy and Houston, I wouldn't have wanted us to enforce the GOR on them and keep them bound to us or else charge a GOR fee that would put them in a bind for years. Let them go for a $15m exit fee, basically two years of distributions, and wish them well. So IMO an $80m or so exit fee each for FSU, Clemson, UNC etc would be reasonable.

IMO, conferences should at root be ongoingly voluntary associations, with low exit barriers. Not "well, you voluntarily agreed to be bound to us for the next 20 years" kinds of things. The people who made those decisions are long gone, and circumstances have changed, etc.

BTW, as someone who grew up just a few miles from College Park, I am very happy that MD has a home in the P2. Leaving the ACC 11 years ago was painful in some ways, but has turned out to be far and away the right move to make.

Just MO.