Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Faegan, post: 289342, member: 360"] In any discussion of change of conference affiliation, how it impacts the entire sphere of college football and the perception of this by the real power brokers must be taken into account. We have seen two instances of realignment that were significantly impacted via the involvement of politicians: the first ACC expansion, in which it changed the schools actually taken; and then the would-be-Pac-16 expansion. With that in mind here are the parties involved if we only look at the Big East and ACC (future iterations): [B]States with Public Institutions:[/B] South Carolina (1), North Carolina (2), Georgia (1), Maryland (2) (includes the Naval Academy, which is Federal, not State), Florida (3), Virginia (2), Ohio (1), Connecticut (1), Kentucky (1), Pennsylvania (2), New Jersey (1), Texas (1), Tennessee (1), California (1) and Idaho (1). [B]States with Private Institutions:[/B] New York (1), Massachusetts (1), North Carolina (2), Florida (1) and Texas (1) Again there are other conferences and institutions that will get involved. That will bring more politicians and courts to the table. BYU, Utah and Senator Hatch leap to mind immediately. That college football is a business is not debated by anyone, and it will be scrutinized as such by parties that feel they are treated unfairly. And for those that think that the college football "power brokers" can at some point in the future run off from the NCAA and do whatever they want, I think you're mistaken. Joe Kennedy once said something to the effect of, "I first wanted money because I thought it would give me power. It wasn't until I was a rich man that I realized true power can only be found in politics." So, don't underestimate this aspect to the story. Politics and the law are not the only variables, but politicians and courts are likely to be the final arbiters of how everything ultimately shakes out. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?