Clemson meeting with Swofford

[sufan]

"Clemson President James Barker, trustees meet with ACC commissioner John Swofford"


“It was a very positive and professional exchange,” Barker said. “We let our board ask any questions they wanted to ask. It was a shattering of myths and legends about the ACC and commissioner Swofford.
“I think it did nothing but reinforce our role in the ACC.”

 

[Whitey23]

Hear hear!!

 

[rrlbees]

That's good news, but WHY did they have to meet? I still think there has been more to some of the rumors than people want to admit.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Guinness]

That's good news, but WHY did they have to meet? I still think there has been more to some of the rumors than people want to admit.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I tend to agree with you. The fanbases of both FSU and Clemson are very bitter about Swofford and the ACC in general. It is not out of the realm of possibility that they force their schools to act.

 

[Chip]

That's good news, but WHY did they have to meet? I still think there has been more to some of the rumors than people want to admit.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

"Shattering of myths and legends about the ACC" tells me that some Clemson board members probably wanted a good walk thru of the ACC contract. FSU board member popping off in the media started all of this.

ACC rules. It's a big boy conference. Always was, always will be. It's ok for everyone to accept that.

 

[Stern]

That's good news, but WHY did they have to meet? I still think there has been more to some of the rumors than people want to admit.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Exactly. The Big 12 rumors were/are probably very real. The report I heard today (maybe it is right maybe its total BS) is Clemson isn't happy with the Orange Bowl deal at all. Wants to know what is going on with ND and talks with them and how they fit into the Orange Bowl deal and or the conference down the road. And not happy with SU/Pitt coming (and just because it was a "unanimous" vote back in September doesn't mean it actually was "unanimous"...that might have been the spin the ACC put on it to show a united front if the vote wasn't "unanimous". Now maybe it was unanimous but the point is then again maybe it wasn't). And that report came from SIRIUS/XM college sports radio and when it comes to reporting they are usually pretty solid I have learned over the past year or so.

 

[CIL]

Exactly. The Big 12 rumors were/are probably very real. The report I heard today (maybe it is right maybe its total BS) is Clemson isn't happy with the Orange Bowl deal at all. Wants to know what is going on with ND and talks with them and how they fit into the Orange Bowl deal and or the conference down the road. And not happy with SU/Pitt coming (and just because it was a "unanimous" vote back in September doesn't mean it actually was "unanimous"...that might have been the spin the ACC put on it to show a united front if the vote wasn't "unanimous". Now maybe it was unanimous but the point is then again maybe it wasn't). And that report came from SIRIUS/XM college sports radio and when it comes to reporting they are usually pretty solid I have learned over the past year or so.

I understand what you are writing, but this isn't totally truthful. Clemson was 100% in favor of expansion. What wasn't unanimous was the selection of teams. The vote was, in fact, unanimous for Syracuse. In fact, Syracuse has been a top target of the ACC for quite some time. There were avid discussions about the 2nd team, be it UCONN, Pitt, WVU, L'Ville, and even poor Rutgers.

 

[arbitragegls]

The ACC conference as well as others always indicate unanimous positive vote on incoming teams for expansion...even if the vote was 9-4 or 10-2 or whatever. Importantly, 'Cuse was #1 on the expansion list...Pitt was not #2 (although rumor that SEC/Big 12 were looking at Pitt was also reason to grab Pitt)...originally if was Uconn but BC led negative voting against Uconn that also was stroked by the Uconn law suite against the ACC from 2003--'Cuse did not sign onto the law suite.
Regardless, the meeting was to discuss all factors of the recent "doings of the ACC" including TV contract, Orange Bowl, Notre Dame, and other information (my source indicates other ACC teams were there also--more on this to come out by Wednesday next if not earlier and should be positive (hint)

 

[Chip]

The ACC conference as well as others always indicate unanimous positive vote on incoming teams for expansion...even if the vote was 9-4 or 10-2 or whatever. Importantly, 'Cuse was #1 on the expansion list...Pitt was not #2 (although rumor that SEC/Big 12 were looking at Pitt was also reason to grab Pitt)...originally if was Uconn but BC led negative voting against Uconn that also was stroked by the Uconn law suite against the ACC from 2003--'Cuse did not sign onto the law suite.
Regardless, the meeting was to discuss all factors of the recent "doings of the ACC" including TV contract, Orange Bowl, Notre Dame, and other information (my source indicates other ACC teams were there also--more on this to come out by Wednesday next if not earlier and should be positive (hint)

When the ACC expanded in 2003 they weren't unanimous. And everyone knew how each school voted.

New policy?

Last paragraph makes sense. FSU BoT member set off an interesting chain with his comment about the TV contract. And given the recent Orange Bowl news, ND meeting confirmed, it wouldn't surprise me at all if several teams wanted a meeting with Swofford to get a briefing on everything.

It also wouldn't surprise me that certain media members and this board thought that the meeting meant something else.

 

[Toga]

I have to say that I am pretty impressed with Swofford. His only misstep was mistiming the TV contract a few years back by negotiating it prior to the Pac 10 deal and that had a bit of a carryover to the new contract since he couldn't go to the market. Other than that he seems like a smooth operator.

 

[44PRIDE]

I have to say that I am pretty impressed with Swofford. His only misstep was mistiming the TV contract a few years back by negotiating it prior to the Pac 10 deal and that had a bit of a carryover to the new contract since he couldn't go to the market. Other than that he seems like a smooth operator.

It could be argued that his "misstep" was the catalyst for the new TV market we are currently in. At the time, the ACC deal was considered a landmark moment for conferences. Had the deal not been made, would the B1G and PAC still have the same leverage in their negotiations?

 

[Toga]

It could be argued that his "misstep" was the catalyst for the new TV market we are currently in. At the time, the ACC deal was considered a landmark moment for conferences. Had the deal not been made, would the B1G and PAC still have the same leverage in their negotiations?

I can't really blame him for it as I'm not sure how he could have known or as you say - have had the benefit of another conference establishing the floor for bidding. I think he is a good commissioner.

 

[rrlbees]

The ACC conference as well as others always indicate unanimous positive vote on incoming teams for expansion...even if the vote was 9-4 or 10-2 or whatever.

That's not true. In 2003 it was well known that UNC & Duke voted against expansion even in "straw polls" and the formal vote. They, along with UVa's last minute politically driven no vote, kept SU out. SU would have been in if either of them had voted yes, regardless of Warner pressuring UVa. Even VT and BC getting in wasn't unanimous.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[PeteCalvin]

That's not true. In 2003 it was well known that UNC & Duke voted against expansion even in "straw polls" and the formal vote. They, along with UVa's last minute politically driven no vote, kept SU out. SU would have been in if either of them had voted yes, regardless of Warner pressuring UVa. Even VT and BC getting in wasn't unanimous.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Spot on. UVa was the vote that killed SU, however. Duke and UNC didn't play any favorites. They voted against expansion, not against teams. It was a "NO" across the board for them. Sure one could have stepped up and saved us, but I'm sure they didn't want to piss UVA off and thwart their efforts to include VaTech.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Clemson isn't going to the SEC or B1G.

If they're stupid enough to go to the B12 then I have nothing.

 

[SURules]

Clemson isn't going to the SEC or B1G.

If they're stupid enough to go to the B12 then I have nothing.

If they do, the decision is totally based upon emotion and nothing else. It won't be the first decision ever made solely based on emotion but those usually aren't good decisions in the end.