Baffled by the notion of SMU in the ACC. These decisions are clearly being made at bourbon tastings.
More Realignment News
- Thread starter tarheel0910
- Start date
I don't understand why everyone just assumes we won't play duke anymore if we are in different conferences. There are a ton of non conference games played every year and multiple schools in different conferences that have rivals. We won't stop playing them every year.
Don’t mind play them for the money 1 time a year…..The rivalry was done when UNC sent k home….
Maybe one day the ACC will be proactive about something instead of reactive.
It was proactive when it added the Big East schools. It's just nobody saw Colorado leaving, and that triggered everything else.
Probably added the wrong Big East schools. Miami and VT would have been enough in hindsight. It's kind of ironic that the ACC adding all those schools basically started the modern era of realignment, which could possibly lead to UNC leaving the ACC.
Bball-wise, things were never the same once we grew beyond 9 when MIA/VT were added. The end of round-robin was the end of the greatest bball conference play. Nothing will be worse than that change imo.
Fball-wise, the team has been up and down, the league has been up & down... the entire ncaa is a shit-show with the nil and portal. Bleh.
Fball-wise, the team has been up and down, the league has been up & down... the entire ncaa is a shit-show with the nil and portal. Bleh.
Apparently Clemson has hired a law firm to look over their options on the GofR. If true, that's an interesting move since FSU has had someone looking too. Makes me wonder if FSU found a possible way to challenge it and Clemson might jump on board with them.
Which BE schools do you mean? The ACC added Miami and VT and then later BC far too late - so even that move was reactive, and quite late at that. Once the Big 12 was formed and was playing a Championship Game, the ACC should have acted immediately to go to 12 to keep pace. They should have been playing an ACC Championship at the close of the 20th century. The 2001 Miami team should have been an ACC National Champ.
The first Big 12 Champ game was for the 1996 season. The ACC should have acted so that it would have its first by the 1998 season. Adding Miami when it was still a very big TV draw and VT when it clearly was rising quickly (VT stomped Bama in a bowl that season- pre Vick) and Syracuse with Donovan McNabb (the last years when Syracuse football drew fairly large audiences) would have been a huge boon to ACC football going forward.
All 3 of those then BE teams went to a bowl (and they were the 3 best in the BE). VT and Miami both won bowls. In 1998, FSU barely lost the BCS Champ game to Tennessee, and GT whupped ND soundly to finish 10-2. A 12 team ACC for 1998 would have been as deep a football league as any in the country, and its TV numbers would have been very high.
And, if the ACC were going to be 12 for 1998, adding Miami, VT, and Syracuse, would Mack have been more likely to stay at UNC?
I agree with you, because by then, I think it obvious, Mack knew he could not beat teams he could not out-recruit. And no way could even he out-recruit FSU then. He knew he could make Texas into the total recruiting juggernaut.
But the important issue is that if the ACC leadership had that vision then, it would have forced UNC to not settle for Torbush, because that 12 member ACC would have been lauded as a dream football league, and all kinds of very bright and energetic young coaches would have been campaigning for the UNC job. At the time, I think Jim Donnan ws the biggest name who actually 'campaigned' for the UNC job. If the ACC had been adding Miami, VT, and Cuse back then, Donnan would have been seen as nothing among those very interested in the UNC job.
Obviously things have evolved much differently than what the narrative was, coming out of the ACC''s spring meetings.
The question that needs to be addressed before Carolina does something stupid: Can Carolina afford to compete in either the SEC or the B1G? Could the Tar Heels be competitive in FOOTBALL in either of those two leagues?
The question that needs to be addressed before Carolina does something stupid: Can Carolina afford to compete in either the SEC or the B1G? Could the Tar Heels be competitive in FOOTBALL in either of those two leagues?
The narrative was schools wanted out with the biggest name brands (UNC, Clemson and FSU) being the main schools. Nothing has changed regarding that.
The question isn't can we be competitive there. We can't even do anything in the ACC when we're only $20 million behind. Being competitive is already a problem. But the issue people don't understand is this will impact all sports. Not just football.
We were told that there would be no expansion.....then there was...
Does Carolina want out or just more money?
Do we really want to change the other schools we compete with and increase travel? To what end?
If we were to join the SEC, only Vanderbilt's stadium would be smaller. Would the athletic department be tempted to rob from Olympic sports to compete with schools that make $50 -$75 Million per year more than Vanderbilt does? $20 Million in media revenue is a drop in the bucket when you change your competitors.
It's $20 now. That gap will at least double. In order to stay competitive at a national level in the big three sports we would have to cut sports. Unless you want basketball and baseball to become mediocre sports along with football, then we have to leave. Travel distance is irrelevant.
What's the difference between $20-$40 Million behind in media revenue vs $50-$75 Million behind in revenue vs. Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU?
Narratives were false. We had the good on premium. Still have the goods, of which I have shared a fair amount over here.
That wasn't the narrative I'm referring to. Lots of schools have examined the FOR for more than two years, but it's rock solid, and it would cost $1 billion to leave right now. Not to mention two of the schools often mentioned as looking to leave do not have offers from any other conference. They don't have any place to go.
Each ACC school understands its best interest is for things to work out in the ACC, and efforts are being made to achieve that. Not saying it will happen, but the league has time to work in some changes so the brands and TV schools make more than the others. That will eventually happen, and FSU, Clemson, UNC will be much closer to what SEC and Big Ten schools are making.
At least there's confidence in Charlotte that can and will happen, and hope elsewhere. Not sure there is great confidence in yet, because there isn't tremendous belief Jim Phillips can get this done.
Right, so it's still the same narrative, which is what I meant to say. The media, not including you, tends to just focus on the narrative because it gets views.
I disagree about it being rock solid, though. No such thing in the legal world. A lot of people who think they have rock solid cases have lost their shirt after going through the legal process. I'm also very interested in this private equity angle that FSU is looking into. That could make the GofR irrelevant, because FSU would still get money.
FSU private equity angle won't happen because it would not be able as part of the NCAA doing business that way. And if it could, what would happen if some coked up Wall Street idiot was ticked at Norvell for losing a game he shouldn't and wanted to fire him? They wouldn't treat it like college sports.
MOST of FSU's spewings were just that, spewings.
Until I see there is a way out of the GOR, I will maintain there isn't. Many firms have been looking into it and cannot find the crease to get out. Thise in the know I have spoken to have acknowledged it's as rock solid as it gets.
We will see. And even if there is a crack, there has to be a landing spot for a school to leave, and other than two schools (neither named Clemson or FSU), there isn't one.
