ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[Orangefizz]

I assume 9 conference games if we grab these 3 teams

I would also require Notre Dame to play a 6th ACC team. They could play the original 5 rotating teams and Stanford every year. I think Notre Dame would be agreeable to that since they have a vested interest to play in California every year

The rest of the ACC would play 2 protected rivalry games and rotate the other 14 teams every two years (2+ 7/7). For Syracuse that means playing BC and Pitt annually and playing a California team every year. This will necessitate a trip West every other year.

For basketball, the men and women could travel together for their annual western trip. They could combine San Francisco and Dallas with games played Weds, Saturday and Tuesday. The biggest travel expense would be for the 3 newcomers who would be required to travel east 3 to 4 times in football and 2 extended week-long regional trips (BC CUSE PITT) (UL UVA VT) (UNC DUKE NCST WF) (CLEM GT FSU MIAMI) for basketball. For Cal, Stanford and SMU’s Olympic sports they could join the MPSF sports Federation. Mountain Pacific Sports Federation - Wikipedia

 

[Hoo's That]

It used to be that the ACC conference headquarters got an equal revenue share. Why not cut that in half and use the $20 million to give to all schools for their increased travel budget

I think they use that share to run the championships in the Olympic sports, like the NCAA does with the CBS b-ball money. For example, paying the expenses of 6 field hockey teams for the ACC championship tournament (last year it was only 5 because the tournament was in Durham).

 

[Chip]

Sure doesn't feel like a conference where everyone works together for the greater good. Sigh.

Oh, that's way out the window now.

 

[Bayside44]

I don’t even know where I read this, so it could have been here. But someone speculated they were voting no because it would make it harder to dissolve the conference. Theory was that it takes 8 now to do it. You add 3 who would certainly vote no, it becomes harder to keep your options open.

Read on the twitters NCSU (not UNC) and VT (not UVa) were part of the hold-ups.

 

[djorange1989]

Hideous, disgusting and shockingly low.

Much higher than I expected.

In Rutgers defense, it’s hard to have good numbers when everyone turns the game off when you are losing 56-0 at halftime. Oh wait, that’s not really defending Rutgers. Oh well.

 

[Willy75]

I don’t even know where I read this, so it could have been here. But someone speculated they were voting no because it would make it harder to dissolve the conference. Theory was that it takes 8 now to do it. You add 3 who would certainly vote no, it becomes harder to keep your options open.

I don’t even know where I read this, so it could have been here. But someone speculated they were voting no because it would make it harder to dissolve the conference. Theory was that it takes 8 now to do it. You add 3 who would certainly vote no, it becomes harder to keep your options open.

Still don't believe a simple majority could dissolve the conference but I did read the by laws document linked in this thread and did not see any discussion of how the conference itself could be dissolved (individual schools yes).

I guess it doesn't matter if these schools believe it.

This is as good a theory as any. Sure doesn't feel like a conference where everyone works together for the greater good. Sigh.

Nobody knows what it would take to "dissolve" the ACC, or even whether there's anything to dissolve. The conference is an unincorporated association, so it may be nothing more legally than its members. If that's the case it makes sense the by-laws have no dissolution procedure but allow for withdrawal. And with withdrawal comes consequences, such as under the GOR.

 

[shantydaze]

Baylor revenue sports seem sketchy.

Why? Because in the past their basketball program was rocked by a murder scandal, where on player killed another, the HC tried covering up the tuition payments he personally made to the murdered player by claiming the player was a drug dealer? Perhaps because the football program protected rapists? Nothing sketchy at all. . . .

 

[Willy75]

Why? Because in the past their basketball program was rocked by a murder scandal, where on player killed another, the HC tried covering up the tuition payments he personally made to the murdered player by claiming the player was a drug dealer? Perhaps because the football program protected rapists? Nothing sketchy at all. . . .

What's the point, that they have done bad stuff in the past so nobody should want to associate with them forevermore? I don't see fellow SEC members running away from Georgia and Alabama over the stuff that's happened there over the past year. I do see a modest but fairly steady stream of posts here that SU should be in a conference with Penn State.

 

[kcsu]

They wouldn't vote yesterday. I think this tells us

a) there aren't enough votes to make this happen right now and
b) they have to be pretty close to having the votes or they just would have reported that the idea has been tabled.

Reports I have seen say FSU, Clemson and UNC are the three known no votes. Apparently at least one other school is also voting no right now.

Why did these three vote no? What do they have in common?

I suspect they won't vote yes unless as a result of doing this, they get a bigger share of the extra revenue adding these schools would bring.

They see this as a chance to extort some money.

If this is the case, it really is a shame.

Seems like they have checked out as ACC conference members.

They don't care about the long term future of the conference. They only care about taking as much money as possible from their partner's pockets.

Am I reading this wrong? Do I need to apologize to these schools?

Spot on. I also think that ESPN is pushing for more games and an extra from ND each year.
Id say 50 50 this gets done. Its a coin toss at this point

 

[shantydaze]

What's the point, that they have done bad stuff in the past so nobody should want to associate with them forevermore? I don't see fellow SEC members running away from Georgia and Alabama over the stuff that's happened there over the past year. I do see a modest but fairly steady stream of posts here that SU should be in a conference with Penn State.

I could bring those things up as well in response to another poster indicating that PSU's revenue sports being sketchy. I also never said that no one should associate with them, just pointing out why the Baylor revenue sports may seem sketchy.

 

[orangeinjersey]

“We added Louisville because Florida State and Clemson wanted it. Some of the nerdier academic schools wanted a different school (UConn).” Good interview with former UNC chancellor and head of ACC presidents during previous realignment."

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Nobody knows what it would take to "dissolve" the ACC, or even whether there's anything to dissolve. The conference is an unincorporated association, so it may be nothing more legally than its members. If that's the case it makes sense the by-laws have no dissolution procedure but allow for withdrawal. And with withdrawal comes consequences, such as under the GOR.

Since it is unincorporated wouldn’t you technically need a 100% vote? If just Wake wants to stay the ACC will still exist as long as they add 5 new members.

Looking at the by laws you need 75% for any membership changes. Wouldn’t dissolving technically fall under a membership change?

For any resolution to pass you need 66%. So I would think legally speaking 53% wouldn’t hold. Maybe 66% would but like I said before if Wake wants to salvage the ACC all alone technically it still exists.

 

[hoopsupstate]

They wouldn't vote yesterday. I think this tells us

a) there aren't enough votes to make this happen right now and
b) they have to be pretty close to having the votes or they just would have reported that the idea has been tabled.

Reports I have seen say FSU, Clemson and UNC are the three known no votes. Apparently at least one other school is also voting no right now.

Why did these three vote no? What do they have in common?

I suspect they won't vote yes unless as a result of doing this, they get a bigger share of the extra revenue adding these schools would bring.

They see this as a chance to extort some money.

If this is the case, it really is a shame.

Seems like they have checked out as ACC conference members.

They don't care about the long term future of the conference. They only care about taking as much money as possible from their partner's pockets.

Am I reading this wrong? Do I need to apologize to these schools?

The larger the ACC yearly payout is, means the exit fee goes up. Big conflict of interest with these three schools.

 

[WoadBlue]

When it happens. UNC will be the first school to pull out of the ACC. I don't trust those folks at all.

If I'm the ACC I sit still for a bit. The programs we are chasing will be there and if we wait long enough some Big 12 programs may be there in a few years as well.

That's because you are ignorant of ACC history and its present. Everybody but a few old BE types is damning UNC fort not leaving the ACC, for wanting to hang on way past time just to have that power in its old league it cannot have in SEC or BT. Those people know UNC much better than you do.

 

[WoadBlue]

I assume 9 conference games if we grab these 3 teams

If the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.

If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.

 

[Orangefizz]

If the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.

If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.

Why would Clemson and Florida State look to leave if the ACC provides the opportunity through the success initiative for equal or greater revenue then the SEC along with a much easier path to the CFP playoffs.

If Florida State is as great as they think they are, they should easily win 10 games annually in the ACC. I doubt they’d be able to do that in the SEC.

 

[Dinkyspond]

I like the SMU idea, I just don't know how Stanford can financially handle all it's other sports in the ACC. They will be out on an island by themselves.

The ACC can add water polo and Cuse can start a team! We had water polo in intramurals at SU in the 80s and had games at the pool near Archbold Gym (help me with name anybody!) and the pool in the Women's Building. It was the most exhausting sport I ever played! I spent a lot of time gasping for air and holding on to the pool's edge!

 

[Willy75]

If the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.

If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.

Per Phil Steele SMU played to 78% of capacity in a stadium the same size as Wake's, against lousy competition. That's close to the median for ACC schools (Wake played to 95%, SU 83%, BC 80%). And I'd argue that SMU has far more upside, that and adding them could be the first step in further expansion into Texas down the road.

 

[Willy75]

Since it is unincorporated wouldn’t you technically need a 100% vote? If just Wake wants to stay the ACC will still exist as long as they add 5 new members.

Looking at the by laws you need 75% for any membership changes. Wouldn’t dissolving technically fall under a membership change?

For any resolution to pass you need 66%. So I would think legally speaking 53% wouldn’t hold. Maybe 66% would but like I said before if Wake wants to salvage the ACC all alone technically it still exists.

It's not 75% for membership changes, rather 75% to add a new member.

 

[PhatOrange]

I think waiting it out for the Big12 GOR to expire and trying to pull

Oklahoma State,
Baylor,
TCU and
West Virginia...

would make for a pretty good ACC and would somewhat withstand the potential loss of FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA ...

We all know money drives the bus but I'm not convinced that UNC and UVA would want to give up their conference standing by leaving.

Besides the schools above Texas Tech and Kansas St have decent football ratings followed by Cincy. Central Florida appears to be the best G5.

You could go super max and bring them all in with Central Florida.

Kansas is a wild card. Their football ratings are horrible but a top basketball school. Would it be worth the gamble if the hoop team ever tanked? If it tanked long term they'd essentially be rutgers.

 

[Chris02M]

If the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.

If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.

Clemson nor fsu have any place to go right now

 

[cuseincincy]

I know its all about the money. But they are really making conference affiliation irrelevant for the most part for fans. There is no good reason for schools to have all their sports teams in the same conference anymore. I firmly believe that every single decision made with football as the primary driver is bad for almost all other sports and for 97% of Division 1 athletes. So let the programs with 3% of the athletes make their own football leagues and cut their huge pie up however they want. Leave the rest of the sports and programs to go back to their regional based conferences.

(My math...187,000 Division 1 athletes, 100 players X 64 football teams is 6,400, or 3.4%)

 

[CousCuse]

I'm not sure you know this, or even if many of the posters here know this. Syracuse was founded by Methodists and at one time, probably the 50's and 60's when both programs were strong, football guys like Kieth Jackson would humorously refer to Syracuse as Northern Methodist.

I got recollecting back and I'm thinking it was old Beeno Cook who said that

 

[qdawgg]

If the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.

If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.

Stanford avg more than half a million more viewers than UNC does since 2013. It’s not just b/c of ND and SC. UNC has played ND, South Carolina, and Clemson 2-3 times each since just 2017. I think if we avg out the big names Stanford and UNC have played in the last 10 years, you’d maybe be even with Stanford for viewers. But as you said, they have very poor tv drawing power……

 

[CousCuse]

SMU willing not to take any money is pathetic to me.

Why? The conferences want new teams to take partial shares if they are not accretive. Not much difference.