Realignment back in the news

[Whitey23]

Almost 3 ½ years ago, Swarbrick hinted at major-college membership that divided itself between academically-minded and athletically-minded. As one powerful administrator suggested, you could even envision a certain payback headed the ACC's way.

If the plaintiffs win and realignment strikes away, Clemson and Florida State could conceivably lean more toward the SEC's spending philosophy than that of the ACC. Those two football programs look more like the SEC's version of traditional Southern powerhouse.

"Most of the rest of the ACC would say no [to that spending philosophy]," explained an administrator who did not wish to be identified. "It's less economic than it is cultural. … There's a chance this [trial] will be a catalyst for that."

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Almost 3 ½ years ago, Swarbrick hinted at major-college membership that divided itself between academically-minded and athletically-minded. As one powerful administrator suggested, you could even envision a certain payback headed the ACC's way.
If the plaintiffs win and realignment strikes away, Clemson and Florida State could conceivably lean more toward the SEC's spending philosophy than that of the ACC. Those two football programs look more like the SEC's version of traditional Southern powerhouse.
"Most of the rest of the ACC would say no [to that spending philosophy]," explained an administrator who did not wish to be identified. "It's less economic than it is cultural. … There's a chance this [trial] will be a catalyst for that."

Of course, Congress could always step in and provide some antitrust exemptions.

 

[orange79]

A few thoughts/questions.

• "As one powerful administrator suggested, you could even envision a certain payback headed the ACC's way." Payback for what? I know earlier in the article, Dodd says, "Tearing apart conferences for the purpose of increased revenue began in earnest 15 years ago. That's when the ACC began a ruthless expansion that eventually killed the Big East and a certain level of gentlemanly conduct among commissioners." But I think that is revisionist history. The ACC was looking at being picked apart, not looking to begin an annexation of the CFB landscape. They reacted defensively in their best interest in order to keep FSU and Clemson in the fold. Not sure what Dodd's axe to grind here is...
• If this were to happen, what other conferences would be 'all in" on paying/bidding for players other than the SEC? B1G? Pac12? BigXII? I can definitely see certain teams in each of those conferences being more 'academically-minded' and not wanting to be a part of what would essentially be professionals playing for colleges (Northwestern, Vandy, many ACC schools, etc.).
• "I think it goes to a 64-team super division," said veteran media consultant Chris Bevilacqua. "I think there's going to be realignment. The driver of realignment isn't going to be free market of player services [via the Alston trial], but it will be when the next TV deals come up." If this indeed comes to pass, it will be interesting to see who gets left out/leaves. Currently, there are 64 teams in P5 conferences. That doesn't include independents Notre Dame, BYU, etc. Would teams (read: Rutgers) finally give up D1 football? Which other teams?

It will certainly be very interesting (and concerning) to see the outcome of this trial.

 

[Hoo's That]

Re: the Pac-12. I seriously doubt Stanford or Cal would go along with the "pay for play" idea. The California legislature may step in and forbid UCLA from doing it as well. USC-w is a big question mark. The other 8 would probably go along with "pay for play".

After the way Father Hesburgh built them up from being an academic backwater, ND will go with the academic group. Even the hardest-core of their hard-core "Let's pay the players" fans admit they're screaming against a hurricane on that one.

The biggest wildcard in all of this is how some state legislatures will react. Some, of course {cough, Alabama, cough}, will see no problem with it. But I think there will be some surprises and some schools who thought they'd be "pay for play" won't be allowed to go that route.

 

[SmilinBob]

Amazing...the ACC is in a down year and this guy has them losing Clemson and FSU. Clemson is sitting in the catbird seat and this would be one of the most foolish things they would ever do. I hope people don't click his column.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

A few thoughts/questions.

"As one powerful administrator suggested, you could even envision a certain payback headed the ACC's way." Payback for what? I know earlier in the article, Dodd says, "Tearing apart conferences for the purpose of increased revenue began in earnest 15 years ago. That's when the ACC began a ruthless expansion that eventually killed the Big East and a certain level of gentlemanly conduct among commissioners." But I think that is revisionist history. The ACC was looking at being picked apart, not looking to begin an annexation of the CFB landscape. They reacted defensively in their best interest in order to keep FSU and Clemson in the fold. Not sure what Dodd's axe to grind here is...

15 years ago?

The first domino fell 28 years ago when the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina and staged a CCG.

Increased revenue indeed.

 

[edowd26]

Almost 3 ½ years ago, Swarbrick hinted at major-college membership that divided itself between academically-minded and athletically-minded. As one powerful administrator suggested, you could even envision a certain payback headed the ACC's way.

If the plaintiffs win and realignment strikes away, Clemson and Florida State could conceivably lean more toward the SEC's spending philosophy than that of the ACC. Those two football programs look more like the SEC's version of traditional Southern powerhouse.

"Most of the rest of the ACC would say no [to that spending philosophy]," explained an administrator who did not wish to be identified. "It's less economic than it is cultural. … There's a chance this [trial] will be a catalyst for that."

IMO Clemson would be stupid to leave. why risk an easier path to the playoffs for a gauntlet?

 

[supp]

Doesn't the ACC TV contract now extend into the 2030s? Didn't all the schools sign a GOR? Won't be as easy as he makes it out to be.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Doesn't the ACC TV contract now extend into the 2030s? Didn't all the schools sign a GOR? Won't be as easy as he makes it out to be.

2036.

 

[TexanMark]

Amazing...the ACC is in a down year and this guy has them losing Clemson and FSU. Clemson is sitting in the catbird seat and this would be one of the most foolish things they would ever do. I hope people don't click his column.

He was doing the same type of crap 5-6 years ago against the ACC.

 

[SmilinBob]

He was doing the same type of crap 5-6 years ago against the ACC.

It's obvious he has an agenda then weather getting backing form the SEC/Big 10 or just a grudge vs the ACC.

That said, hope no one clicks onto his article so not to encourage more of this foolishness.

 

[rrlbees]

I think it goes to a 64-team super division," said veteran media consultant Chris Bevilacqua. "I think there's going to be realignment. The driver of realignment isn't going to be free market of player services [via the Alston trial], but it will be when the next TV deals come up.

64 teams? Like 4x16? Hmmm. Wasn’t there a poster that’s been predicting that eventuality for like the past 20 years?

 

[gbo]

Well it was nice knowing you guys...

 

[shantydaze]

I find it annoying that the Athletic Director of Notre Dame, the school that is too good to join the ACC or any conference, is discussing how this change might affect the ACC.

As to the substance of the article, I would not be surprised if Congress acted to protect their states' investment into facilities.

 

[storange]

I think we should all panic !!!!

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

If this happens I'd hope we drop all non revenue sports (bar lacrosse and a couple ladies to meet title 9) sports down to club level so we can put the best product on the field in football and basketball and those 2 programs aren't forced to carry the rest of the AD. No other choice since we don't have tax payer money to prop up our programs.

We draw more fans per game than an NBA team and our tickets aren't exactly cheap we can pay the basketball team but I don't think we can afford to pay the football team. But I would want to try to hang with the big dogs.

 

[Orange87]

IMO Clemson would be stupid to leave. why risk an easier path to the playoffs for a gauntlet?

$$$$$$$$

 

[edowd26]

$$$$$$$$

I'd rather have championships than an addition few millions. These institutions are already super wealthy. I am sure Clemson's endowment is over a billion dollars.

 

[orange79]

64 teams? Like 4x16? Hmmm. Wasn’t there a poster that’s been predicting that eventuality for like the past 20 years?

Not that I can remember.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

What does the Mountaineer Mole say?

 

[dan7800]

Would teams (read: Rutgers) finally give up D1 football?

Rutgers gave up on D1 football YEARS ago.

 

[Hoo's That]

I'd rather have championships than an addition few millions. These institutions are already super wealthy. I am sure Clemson's endowment is over a billion dollars.

Nope. Here's the top 100. And here's who exceeds $1 Billion. Here's another thing to keep in mind. Most state schools are forbidden by law from using state funds, including money from the endowment, for athletics. Some are even forbidden to loan the athletic department money.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Unless something changes, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC is imminent.

 

[orangecuse]

Of course, Congress could always step in and provide some antitrust exemptions.

Uh-huh. Just as the government did to stop the airline mergers in recent years. Those mergers have certainly been best for us consumers.

 

[TerryD]

Re: the Pac-12. I seriously doubt Stanford or Cal would go along with the "pay for play" idea. The California legislature may step in and forbid UCLA from doing it as well. USC-w is a big question mark. The other 8 would probably go along with "pay for play".

After the way Father Hesburgh built them up from being an academic backwater, ND will go with the academic group. Even the hardest-core of their hard-core "Let's pay the players" fans admit they're screaming against a hurricane on that one.

The biggest wildcard in all of this is how some state legislatures will react. Some, of course {cough, Alabama, cough}, will see no problem with it. But I think there will be some surprises and some schools who thought they'd be "pay for play" won't be allowed to go that route.

Jack Swarbrick is on record multiple times that ND will not do
pay for play". Father John Jenkins, ND's president, has said this as well.