ACC and PAC 12 Demise seems close (FSU officially stating intentions to fight ACC Grant of Rights… Clemson sues the ACC)

[selmaborntidefan]

ND was going to join?

Yep.

 

[dtgreg]

For those who don't know the history, there's something interesting.

Tired of the NCAA in the 1950s and seeing them as inconsistent in who they punished, the Pacific Coast Conference collapsed in an implosion so full of rancor that the official records and files were stolen and vanished off the face of the earth. With air travel becoming a big thing, the powers of the PCC (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington) had meetings to form a 16-team conference all the way back in 1960, before the TV deals got so rich. This conference would have had those five teams plus the 3 service academies, Notre Dame, Penn State, Ga Tech, and five other big-name independent/scholastic schools.

The timing - had they pulled it off - was perfect. It was right as CFB was getting ready to head for TV and also when air travel between the coasts was becoming a thing. What killed it was the Pentagon didn't want their service academies to be part of something like that.

Had that happened, the original WAC (1961) might never have gotten off the ground in the first place. It is entirely POSSIBLE with the high passing offenses of the 1960s combined with TV rights plus segregation preventing games for much of the decade - that it all ends differently if there's a 16-team monster conference in the early days of TV with reach from coast-to-coast that includes Notre Dame.

Can you recommend a favorite book about this?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

They basically cannot - the P5 teams don't have enough noncon games to prop up more than a few schools trying to actually climb the ladder.

But as Pate says - pretending all 130-whatever teams are playing the same sport is ludicrous.

As a reminder: since we went to "champions now" as opposed to "retroactive champions" (1936), 29 teams have won national championships. And with the cessation of: a) ties; b) increase in conference membership; and c) multiple polls recognizing national champions combined with a head-to-head title game, many of those teams would not have any (looking right at you, 1984 BYU). UCLA (1954), Pitt (1976), BYU (1984), Colorado or Ga Tech - or perhaps both in a four-team playoff (1990), Washington and Washington (1991) would probably not have won titles, which reduces the overall total. In short, college football membership is like a funnel where as you get closer to the narrowing section, the exact same series of teams are going to be there.

Iowa State is not going to win a college football national championship and nobody pretends they will.
The same can be said for schools like Cal, Vandy, Indiana, Southern Miss, and about 77% of the total number of teams in FBS. Use the occasional hiccups listed above, and it's fair to say that we are playing college football to determine which one of the top 20% of schools historically will win the national championship.

Pate rightly notes there NEVER WAS PARITY!!!

The bowl game agreements allowed the charade of parity to go on because we could avoid getting games like Alabama vs Texas (1977), Alabama vs Ohio State (1979), Georgia vs SMU (1982), Nebraska vs Texas (1983), BYU vs whomever (1984), Colorado vs Ga Tech (1990), Washington vs Miami (1991), Nebraska vs Penn St (1994), Florida St vs Arizona St (1996), Michigan vs Nebraska (1997).

If we had had those games, the ruse would have been exposed.

 

[Guido]

The pac 12 might bite it but the ACC is not going anywhere. Media rights deal goes till 2036 and it seems to be solid. No way out, not even a buyout. If Clemson for example goes to the SEC, whatever media monies they receive goes to the ACC for the next 13 years. Why would you defect to the SEC if there is no money.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The pac 12 might bite it but the ACC is not going anywhere. Media rights deal goes till 2036 and it seems to be solid. No way out, not even a buyout. If Clemson for example goes to the SEC, whatever media monies they receive goes to the ACC for the next 13 years. Why would you defect to the SEC if there is no money.

I assume you've not read it (nor hav I - there's exactly one copy) but I've heard rumblings that if enough signees want to nullify, they can. If so, while it likely seemed an extraordinary thing to consider ever happen a few years ago, a lot has changed and we may well see an exodus.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I assume you've not read it (nor hav I - there's exactly one copy) but I've heard rumblings that if enough signees want to nullify, they can. If so, while it likely seemed an extraordinary thing to consider ever happen a few years ago, a lot has changed and we may well see an exodus.

I don’t know what the number of teams is, but I believe you are right.

And when FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech all see the likes of Vanderbilt and Indiana making over twice the amount of money they are, they will band together and break the bond.

Frankly I am shocked Notre Dame is willing to sit back and watch this all happen too. And I could understand if they were protecting something sacred. Pseudo-Independence ain’t that.

 

[81usaf92]

I assume you've not read it (nor hav I - there's exactly one copy) but I've heard rumblings that if enough signees want to nullify, they can. If so, while it likely seemed an extraordinary thing to consider ever happen a few years ago, a lot has changed and we may well see an exodus.

What people also don’t realize is that ESPN is the provider for the ACC and having Clemson and FSU playing SEC schools every week is far more profitable than watching them play ACC teams.

Another thing is ND will probably try to move and join the 7.

So it’s really assuming that ESPN would stand in the way of this for this being “iron clad” like many try to present it.

 

[81usaf92]

I don’t know what the number of teams is, but I believe you are right.

And when FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech all see the likes of Vanderbilt and Indiana making over twice the amount of money they are, they will band together and break the bond.

Frankly I am shocked Notre Dame is willing to sit back and watch this all happen too. And I could understand if they were protecting something sacred. Pseudo-Independence ain’t that.

ND is gauging what happens to their rivalry with USC and Stanford and what a jump could potentially have

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The pac 12 might bite it but the ACC is not going anywhere. Media rights deal goes till 2036 and it seems to be solid. No way out, not even a buyout. If Clemson for example goes to the SEC, whatever media monies they receive goes to the ACC for the next 13 years. Why would you defect to the SEC if there is no money.

This reminds me of my light bulb with the lifetime warranty.......

 

[TideEngineer08]

ND is gauging what happens to their rivalry with USC and Stanford and what a jump could potentially have

Which is why I am a little perplexed that the Big Ten has not gone after Stanford. Not to get Stanford, who is worthless by itself, but since they’ve already gotten USC, get Stanford and force ND’s hand.

 

[81usaf92]

Which is why I am a little perplexed that the Big Ten has not gone after Stanford. Not to get Stanford, who is worthless by itself, but since they’ve already gotten USC, get Stanford and force ND’s hand.

I personally think the B1G doesn’t want to be the one to make the first move in the inevitable fall and look like they are the ones acting the hog. I’m quite confident that they will move on Stanford next if it means getting ND.

 

[Ole Man Dan]

ND is gauging what happens to their rivalry with USC and Stanford and what a jump could potentially have

IMO The rivalry between ND, USC,and Stanford will be moot. Money talks and USC and Stanford may have considerable money, but it's an anthill compared to the money ND can make by making the jump.
Example Playing Alabama, or Texas or Ga.
ALSO... When the big expansions occur the NILs for players outside the big conferences will likely be deminished. Players can be a real hot shot, but if no one sees them Mr. Deep Pockets will take his money to guys who will be on ESPN or ABC. It's an investment to Mr. Deep Pockets.
I could be wrong, but follow the money will be the name of the game.

 

[Tidelines]

Maybe ND doesn’t want to line up against the big boys week in and week out. They are arrogant enough to believe they can exist in their own little world. They may not be picking or choosing, but scared. They have had plenty of invites down through the years. They play the schedule they want to play…

 

[Joefus]

I don’t think the big ten wants Stanford or cal. They nearly took Oregon and Washington when they took usc and ucla. That ohio st ad (gene smith?) spilled half the beans a few years back when he said the big ten really wanted uva and nd. I think they’ll be prepared for all events but play it by ear. If both the pac and acc fall that’d be the 4 they’d chase I think.

with the acc the number needed to dissolve is 7 schools of the 15. I think the reworked revenue sharing deal recently floated could convince enough of the current unhappy players to vote against dissolving. There’s only 2 conferences worth leaving the acc for and that’d only be open to 6 teams. I think the acc stays put till the summer after the 2035 season then all heck will break loose

 

[81usaf92]

IMO The rivalry between ND, USC,and Stanford will be moot. Money talks and USC and Stanford may have considerable money, but it's an anthill compared to the money ND can make by making the jump.
Example Playing Alabama, or Texas or Ga.
ALSO... When the big expansions occur the NILs for players outside the big conferences will likely be deminished. Players can be a real hot shot, but if no one sees them Mr. Deep Pockets will take his money to guys who will be on ESPN or ABC. It's an investment to Mr. Deep Pockets.
I could be wrong, but follow the money will be the name of the game.

Yes but ND wants to be treated like a pretty pretty princess more than anything else. USC vs ND is a game that ND under no circumstances wants to lose.

 

[81usaf92]

I think too many of y’all are caught up with this term “Grant of rights” that y’all aren’t considering who the deal is between. ESPN isn’t going to get in the way of FSU and Clemson playing an SEC schedule to keep the ACC alive.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I personally think the B1G doesn’t want to be the one to make the first move in the inevitable fall and look like they are the ones acting the hog. I’m quite confident that they will move on Stanford next if it means getting ND.

Of course not. Yet, they started both of the last 2 major waves. They added Penn State before we added Arkansas/South Carolina. Penn State and South Carolina were both independent, so there was little disruption overall. Arkansas was simply bailing out of a sinking ship.

But the Big Ten added Nebraska first, which started the disintegration of the Big 12. There were talks between the Pac 10 and Texas/OU/Texas A&M/Colorado, but none of that solidified. Nebraska bolting to the Big Ten started it all.

There was very little media backlash against those moves. In fact, I recall a lot of giddiness from most of them about how the Big Ten now had 4 of the most prestigious programs of all time. But when the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma, the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the media was almost unbearable. Sankey and the SEC were DESTROYING the game.

So I just roll my eyes at this posturing from the Big Ten. First, they will receive zero backlash if they reach out and grab Oregon/Washington/Notre Dame etc. Second, they've already started 2 massive waves of realignment. They've already done this. So just do it and be done with it, and stop posturing like you're concerned about anything other than money.

 

[Joefus]

I think too many of y’all are caught up with this term “Grant of rights” that y’all aren’t considering who the deal is between. ESPN isn’t going to get in the way of FSU and Clemson playing an SEC schedule to keep the ACC alive.

I agree espn wouldn’t necessary be opposed to it but I do think the remaining acc members would be opposed and would sue and win if the conf didn’t fall apart. If it’s less than the required amount of teams it doesn’t change the contract. Louisville, wake, nc st, Boston college, Syracuse, and the like would still try to keep the acc together if they could by replacing 2-6 teams and keeping the defectors media rights. Maybe the ones that want to leave could negotiate something like ou and Texas did but unless they absolutely have to I can’t see the remaining members being excited to join the big 12. If the big 12 would even expand east since they’ve made it very clear they want to expand west. That leaves them with what? The American?

 

[cjhadley]

I think too many of y’all are caught up with this term “Grant of rights” that y’all aren’t considering who the deal is between. ESPN isn’t going to get in the way of FSU and Clemson playing an SEC schedule to keep the ACC alive.

I think ESPN would want the ACC to go away, if they could guarantee these schools go to the SEC. Now they catch to it is that they also have to play defense and keep them out of the BIG 10 since ESPN doesn't have any broadcast rights with the BIG 10 anymore.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I think ESPN would want the ACC to go away, if they could guarantee these schools go to the SEC. Now they catch to it is that they also have to play defense and keep them out of the BIG 10 since ESPN doesn't have any broadcast rights with the BIG 10 anymore.

Good point. I think the preference would be the ACC remain in place than to allow any of FSU, Clemson, Miami, or UNC to go to the Big Ten.

But it seems the only solution for the ACC to remain in place is uneven revenue distribution and that is destined to fail.