Expansion chatter...again

[SmilinBob]

I've had my head in the sand for the last several years. Why would FSU/Clemson have preferred WVU over Pitt/Syracuse? I know that Pitt and FSU played well together in the old Eastern Independant sandbox. Yes, WVU has had a nice run, though they have only been a NC contender back in the Pat White day. Is taking Pitt/Syracuse really the straw that breaks the camel's back in all of this? Why is that? What other gripes does Clemson/FSU have?

FSU has a huge issue with the refs in the ACC. For example in their game vs Wake you can see the ref moving the ball towards a first down in a measurement for Wake. It's just one example but they (FSU) are keeping track of it. They wanted football schools and being in the committee doesn't mean they were thrilled with this. These schools consider themselves football schools and want the glory/pride and cash that go with it, being in the ACC right now is not something you brag about football wise. Will they they leave, I doubt it, but I would never say that this move isn't possible either especially if the money is better and I believe it will be by quite a bit.

The ACC has a long term contract and by adding SU/Pitt it was like getting a home equity loan. The Big 12 has no loan and is selling their house outright and will be able to get a huge house upgrade. This isn't 1975, it's 2012 and a whole different $ ballgame. But, if the ACC gets ND that changes things.

 

[SUATO92]

All of this back and forth about the new Big 12 media deal has me perplexed. The Big 12 is negotiating and extension of a current deal just like the ACC. Granted the Big 12's current deal is up in a few years...they are still working on an extension. The current Big 12 deal was based on 12 teams not 10 so they are currently reaping the financial rewards for having fewer teams than specified in the original contract. In its current form I would argue how does losing Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M while adding TCU and West Virginia equal an increase in conference value...it doesn't. But perception is reality and they are going to get more money...so be it.

The part that has me stumped involves the ACC renegotiation and the conventional wisdom that is forming around the idea that the new deal will be significantly lower than the other power conferences. It would seem to me that it is beneficial to see how the Big 12 contract shakes out as even if ESPN low balls the ACC can decline and the talks go to arbitration. This is not a case where ESPN says take it and the ACC has to bow down. In arbitration all relevant media deals are used as a benchmark which will include the inflated Pac 12 and Big 12 deals. Unless Swofford caves the ACC deal will be in the area of the other power conferences and the likelihood of movement by FSU or Clemson will be minimal.

 

[rosconey]

i bet some of the fox sports along with nbc sports are feeding this-
these are 2 new networks that must have programing- i bet some stupid money will be paid

 

[Admiral Koga]

FSU has a huge issue with the refs in the ACC. For example in their game vs Wake you can see the ref moving the ball towards a first down in a measurement for Wake. It's just one example but they (FSU) are keeping track of it. They wanted football schools and being in the committee doesn't mean they were thrilled with this. These schools consider themselves football schools and want the glory/pride and cash that go with it, being in the ACC right now is not something you brag about football wise. Will they they leave, I doubt it, but I would never say that this move isn't possible either especially if the money is better and I believe it will be by quite a bit.

The ACC has a long term contract and by adding SU/Pitt it was like getting a home equity loan. The Big 12 has no loan and is selling their house outright and will be able to get a huge house upgrade. This isn't 1975, it's 2012 and a whole different $ ballgame. But, if the ACC gets ND that changes things.

You mention that FSU wanted football schools. Who was available? It would seem that the ACC took the available BE teams (again, WVU being out there as well). Who else was in play? Any Big 12 school not named Texas/OU. Nothing there jumps out at me. The only other option was to not expand at all. Until some names are dropped, I can't believe that FSU is upset that Pitt/Syracuse came on board. WHO DID FSU WANT INSTEAD??? Which 'football schools'?
Frankly, I would think that any school that brags about it's football conference and not it's own team likley never did much at football. FSU has plenty of it's own merits to brage about whatever conference it is in.

 

[SmilinBob]

I'd guess they would have rather of had WV and maybe Louisville as well over SU and Pitt. A lot of people look at success, reputation and how big the stadium is or can be. I admit nothing really jumps out but WV made an impression and they draw. WV and Vtech have an interesting rivalry and to the football schools that helps. The perception out there is that SU and Pitt doesn't really care about football, fan wise and number wise they are right. FSU and Clemson didn't want another Wake type school and I think WV would have fit the bill.

I think you have it wrong when you said "the never did much at football..." FSU has as you did point out but they also consider themselves a power football school and being a weak sister football conference (like wake/duke nobody likes playing in front of 37K), being North Carolina's runt, having pride in their football (no matter what the record they think they are always a top 5) and the money possibly too good to turn down...they may be gone.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[sufan]

All of this back and forth about the new Big 12 media deal has me perplexed. The Big 12 is negotiating and extension of a current deal just like the ACC. Granted the Big 12's current deal is up in a few years...they are still working on an extension. The current Big 12 deal was based on 12 teams not 10 so they are currently reaping the financial rewards for having fewer teams than specified in the original contract. In its current form I would argue how does losing Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M while adding TCU and West Virginia equal an increase in conference value...it doesn't. But perception is reality and they are going to get more money...so be it.

The part that has me stumped involves the ACC renegotiation and the conventional wisdom that is forming around the idea that the new deal will be significantly lower than the other power conferences. It would seem to me that it is beneficial to see how the Big 12 contract shakes out as even if ESPN low balls the ACC can decline and the talks go to arbitration. This is not a case where ESPN says take it and the ACC has to bow down. In arbitration all relevant media deals are used as a benchmark which will include the inflated Pac 12 and Big 12 deals. Unless Swofford caves the ACC deal will be in the area of the other power conferences and the likelihood of movement by FSU or Clemson will be minimal.

----------------------

1) Good post: until the results of the ESPN contract renegotiations are reported, Big 12, SEC, ACC, all of these comments are guesswork. The real question is what does ESPN decide to do and what options for arbitration exist if the ACC wants to challenge the renegotiation. The stakes are high because of the extended contract they signed.

FSU and Clemson are unlikely to consider leaving unless there is a significant monetary advantage.

2) Further, unless GT and Miami and VT are also looking to relocate, which would be surprising, FSU and Clemson would have to consider the divisions and teams they would be playing, since the Big 12 plays 9 conference games.


If Texas and Oklahoma are presumably in one division and FSU, Clemson in another, then every year, Clemson and FSU would presumably play against either OK or UT.

However, they would be losing games against Miami, GT and VT, and with their annual SEC rivalry games against USC and UF would have little flexibility OOC.

Do they really want to play and be associated with teams like WVU, ISU, KSU, KU, Baylor, TCU, OSU, TT and perhaps UL and BYU instead of the current ACC teams? If yes, then they are gone.

3) FSU and Miami have been unsuccessful these last number of years likely due to coaching issues. With new coaches and top 10 Rivals recruiting rankings, FSU #6 and Miami #9, it is highly likely FSU and UM and the ACC will be back as one of the Big 5 conferences. With improved play and the new northeast footprint, there is no reason the ACC can not be more than successful.

 

[kingottoiii]

Texas ain't leaving the B12. Or did you not see the terms of their media deal?

Isn't it 6 years? Or has that changed? If I am the ACC I give up the 3rd tier rights to the schools and bring in Texas and ND. Announce it now and let Texas and ND come on in 6 years when their current TV deals allow them. It is worth it long term for the ACC. If that happens you are done forever. You will never need to worry about losing a school again. If FSU leaves for the B12 or if the SEC wants to keep the B12 out of Florida and takes FSU, then the ACC will be stuck as a mid major in football.

 

[IthacaMatt]

----------------------

1) Good post: until the results of the ESPN contract renegotiations are reported, Big 12, SEC, ACC, all of these comments are guesswork. The real question is what does ESPN decide to do and what options for arbitration exist if the ACC wants to challenge the renegotiation. The stakes are high because of the extended contract they signed.

FSU and Clemson are unlikely to consider leaving unless there is a significant monetary advantage.

2) Further, unless GT and Miami and VT are also looking to relocate, which would be surprising, FSU and Clemson would have to consider the divisions and teams they would be playing, since the Big 12 plays 9 conference games.


If Texas and Oklahoma are presumably in one division and FSU, Clemson in another, then every year, Clemson and FSU would presumably play against either OK or UT.

However, they would be losing games against Miami, GT and VT, and with their annual SEC rivalry games against USC and UF would have little flexibility OOC.

Do they really want to play and be associated with teams like WVU, ISU, KSU, KU, Baylor, TCU, OSU, TT and perhaps UL and BYU instead of the current ACC teams? If yes, then they are gone.

3) FSU and Miami have been unsuccessful these last number of years likely due to coaching issues. With new coaches and top 10 Rivals recruiting rankings, FSU #6 and Miami #9, it is highly likely FSU and UM and the ACC will be back as one of the Big 5 conferences. With improved play and the new northeast footprint, there is no reason the ACC can not be more than successful.

If there is one thing Fla. State would like right now, it's probably a do-over on the divisions. I think they'd prefer to play Ga Tech every year, for instance. If Fla State has anything to do with this leak, it's in order to get some leverage against the Carolina schools in re-examining the divisional split. I do think that the old Big East / Northern division makes too much sense, if you really want to build rivalries back up.

 

[omniorange]

If there is one thing Fla. State would like right now, it's probably a do-over on the divisions. I think they'd prefer to play Ga Tech every year, for instance. If Fla State has anything to do with this leak, it's in order to get some leverage against the Carolina schools in re-examining the divisional split. I do think that the old Big East / Northern division makes too much sense, if you really want to build rivalries back up.

Good point. I think FSU wanted Miami, BC, SU, Pitt, VT, Maryland, and Virginia in a North Division while the rest in a South Division. FSU doesn't have a need to face northeastern opponents. They never have. Clemson feels the same way. Which is why those Big East fans who thought the league had a chance at a reverse raid of the ACC back in 2003 were wrong.

The problem with the North/South divisions was that VT was supposedly adamant against it. They had no desire to "recreate" the Big East through an ACC Northern division. And since VT, not FSU, was who the SEC coveted as #14 they apparently won the day, so to speak.

I don't think the ACC thought there was any way this decision might come back to bite them via the Big 12.

May still not. But I could see FSU and Clemson possibly using this to redo the divisions. There is still time after all.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[SmilinBob]

So the ACC will keep redoing divisions depending on who is coveted?

 

[omniorange]

So the ACC will keep redoing divisions depending on who is coveted?

Well one thing we know for sure, they won't redo divisions based upon what we want.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[SmilinBob]

Well one thing we know for sure, they won't redo divisions based upon what we want.

Cheers,
Neil

Ha... for now but in 3 years SU will have the most seniority and will be able to make all the decisions!