Conference Realignment

[King of Defense]

When we're talking about media deals that run another 12 years, it's so hard to see what's going to change between now and then. Ten years ago, did you think USC would be in the Big Ten or Stanford would be in the ACC?

We may have football and basketball teams that are directly paying player salaries. We may see cuts to nonrevenue sports to pay for that. We'll continue to see fewer and fewer prospective pro soccer players -- men AND women -- ever set foot on a college campus. Maybe we'll see grants to colleges to keep their nonrevenue programs in order to develop Olympians.

I can't see how it would make sense to keep playing in the same conferences no matter the sport. If only 20 colleges are emphasizing volleyball, shouldn't they be in their own league? If Johns Hopkins can play D3 in most sports but in the Big Ten in lacrosse, why wouldn't Duke compete in Regional Conference To Be Named Later in swimming and wrestling but compete in a bigger conference in softball and lacrosse?

 

[lotusland]

Happy to take the other side of that argument and set 8/1/28 as a deadline. Accept, reject or counter as you wish.

I’m in. If there’s a settlement or if either or both teams (FSU and/or Clemson) leave the ACC prior to 8/1/28, it will be for either the SEC or the BIG for both.

I’m a basic Pecan pie man.

 

[lotusland]

From Sankey's comments about FSU, it seems like the SEC isn't (at least at this time) particularly interested in them, nor would I expect the SEC be very eager to take on Clemson, as neither of those schools bring in new markets and the incumbent competitors Florida and S. Carolina don't appear to be interested in the boosts those schools would get from joining the SEC. Maybe the "markets" issue is less important than it was for the last round of expansion with the next rounds driven as much or more by the depth/intensity of interest for streaming purposes that a Clemson/FSU brings to the SEC vs. the new markets of North Carolina and Virginia. But, I would bet that Carolina (for sure) and perhaps Virginia are as, if not more, attractive to the SEC than Clemson and FSU.

Certainly it is true that if/when Clemson and FSU free up that one or the other might be snapped up by the BIG/SEC rather than have them go to the other, but unless and until there is a ruling in the Court case and the ACC/ESPN contract remains potentially in place until 2036, the only way that happen would be if ESPN decided it wanted to help facilitate it through settlement. But, ESPN has no reason to do that -- why help FSU move to the BIG (and the Fox contract) or Clemson to the SEC, where ESPN would be paying more for the Clemson inventory it already has at a lower price?

Also, dlmzzz made what I think is a good point that, at their current sizes, the BIG and SEC already have plenty of high quality inventory, with multiple attractive games on each weekend of the conference season. Further expansion wouldn't really add much on top of that, as at least half of the Clemson or Florida St. games that might be added would be against the likes of Vandy/Miss St. or Indiana/Purdue, and/or dilutive of Texas-Georgia or Oregon-Ohio St. matchups added through the current round of expansion.

The real “Carolina”and “USC” in Columbia will have about as much to say about Clemson joining the SEC as TAMU did for Texas joining. BIG added Rutgers and Nebraska. The ACC football schools and ND are the last football schools available.

 

[sagegrouse]

Not specific to luvdahops, my pie bet offer regarding FSU and Clemson both going to either the SEC or the BIG is available to the first taker.

I suspect if a settlement to leave the ACC was reached today, both schools would hear from both conferences today. the bet is that both schools go to one of either the BIG or the SEC.

You recognize, don't you, that the FSU suit has no merit? It was forced by board and boosters on the school, not by the AD or GC. It'll takes years -- it won't go to trial but FSU and their running mate Clemson will get a few bucks based on future bowl or championship revenues (and NCAA hoops too). But then the new formula will benefit ACC teams that win big and produce $$$.

Given my belief here and the evident lack of onterest by the SEC and B1G, I am not too worried about teams leaving.

 

[luvdahops]

I’m in. If there’s a settlement or if either or both teams (FSU and/or Clemson) leave the ACC prior to 8/1/28, it will be for either the SEC or the BIG for both.

I’m a basic Pecan pie man.

Done. Cherry for me. Qualify it all you want but your central argument is still weak sauce based on available evidence not to mention economic logic.

I consider myself close to perfectly hedged on this. The odds of settlement or departure prior to 8/1/28 are extremely low IMHO, and on the odd chance that either occurs, the Big 12 is a far more likely immediate landing spot for both FSU and Clemson.

 

[lotusland]

You recognize, don't you, that the FSU suit has no merit? It was forced by board and boosters on the school, not by the AD or GC. It'll takes years -- it won't go to trial but FSU and their running mate Clemson will get a few bucks based on future bowl or championship revenues (and NCAA hoops too). But then the new formula will benefit ACC teams that win big and produce $$$.

Given my belief here and the evident lack of onterest by the SEC and B1G, I am not too worried about teams leaving.

Yes. I have never said the GOR will not hold. The only objection I l’ve made was to the idea that the SEC and BIG would not take FSU and Clemson. The bet I made was that, should the unlikely happen by 2028, both schools go to one of the two conferences. A draw is perhaps mostl likely. But I’m pretty confident those two conferences don’t sit tight with Clemson and FSU on the board. That would make no sense based on what I’ve seen of conference realignment. But if I’m wrong I’m happy to delivery the pie.

 

[lotusland]

Done. Cherry for me. Qualify it all you want but your central argument is still weak sauce based on available evidence not to mention economic logic.

I consider myself close to perfectly hedged on this. The odds of settlement or departure prior to 8/1/28 are extremely low IMHO, and on the odd chance that either occurs, the Big 12 is a far more likely immediate landing spot for both FSU and Clemson.

It’s a bet!

 

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I’m in. If there’s a settlement or if either or both teams (FSU and/or Clemson) leave the ACC prior to 8/1/28, it will be for either the SEC or the BIG for both.

I’m a basic Pecan pie man.

Oh no, that's the bet I made!

 

[RoseBowl1942]

Love all this conversation. This is exactly what I was hoping for! Also finally figured out the quote thing, kinda cool feature.

I tend to agree with RoseBowl in content, if not always in tone.

I, as usual, will post my required reminder that the B12 media contract expires at the end of the 2030-2031 season. So they should be starting negotiations (my guess) around 2029, which frankly isn't all that far from now.

The ACC should be trying to side broker a deal in which a subset of [strong] B12 schools bolt for the ACC in exchange for a sweetened deal with ESPN. The argument would be some form of saving ESPN money by highgrading their media content into one of the two conferences (ACC, B12), not both. They could shift money to the ACC and shift money away from the B12, thereby stabilizing the ACC as the third best conference and making the B12 the clearly shakiest - but still existing for CFP purposes and to basically placehold schools that simply can't find a way themselves.

I don't pretend to know (or have the expertise on) how to pitch this plan. I'll leave that to Commissioners and lawyers. But it doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

Alternatively, the ACC could do nothing and risk the B12 doing the exact reverse.

- Chillin

This is a really interesting point and idea that I wasn’t aware of. There could be a path to pulling in a few of the better B12 brands, but I would think ONLY if the payout numbers for their next contract are underwhelming AND there is line of sight into a stable ACC core of reputable brands remaining. B12 defectors would be entering a cluster with the ACC at that point as you’d be closing in on 2036 (the clear outside date for FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA). But if people thought the ACC would be the survivor of the two conferences, you might be able to lure.

I think the biggest risk is that B12 schools may think of themselves as the survivors over the ACC. The B12 likely won’t have any teams barking to leave at that point, unlike the ACC in which they’d be sorting things out. The B12 also has a lot of good-not-great brands (OSU, KU, KSU, ASU, CU, Utah, TCU, WVU, etc). They also have a lot more large public schools (ones above + UCF, Houston, Cincinnati). If it’s just the watered down ACC schools left after a raid of the top 4-5 brands, I think the B12 may actually have a more profitable core of programs top-to-bottom. The scenario where the B12 defects would rely on a bad contract for the B12, but idk if the ACC’s would be any better when up when you have so many small private schools remaining (BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, SMU). It’s definitely a possibility. This is what I was talking about in ideas!

I see validity in some of your points, but I think there are other considerations that make this less certain (not wrong, just less certain).

I think you are right that if (big if) FSU or Clemson comes free of the ACC, there will be pressure in the B1G and SEC to add them to make sure the other conference doesn't. That said, I think there are a number of factors that pull in the opposite direction:

• ESPN (SEC) was already paying for them through the ACC deal. They won't want to pay twice for the same team. Fox (B1G) might be more eager for a footprint in SEC territory.
• Both of these schools are a significant step down in academics from the existing members in the B1G. In that conference, the university presidents still hold much of the power. I think their response to adding either of these would be "Ewww."
• Both the B1G and the SEC are just beginning to digest the additional teams they got. I don't either is eager for more change right now (in X years, maybe?)
• I think that even FSU or Clemson would lead to REDUCED revenue per school in those two conferences, if they were added as full share members. With the number of teams they have, they don't need more inventory in general. And they really don't need more "name" teams either. There are only so many time slots for games of significance. The B1G just added a team that played in the national championship last year for half price. Why would Clemson deserve more? Those new half price members are now some of the ones voting on whether they think adding more teams (and at what price) is a good idea.

Settlement? I'd bet a pie on that. Ain't gonna be no settlement. The ACC has NO reason to settle. Drag it out, and make it hurt.

All these points are valid, but I think the FOMO for the BIG and SEC will be too great to not rush in for FSU, Clemson, UVA, and UNC. Those four (+ Miami) are the last teams that can possibly grow the pie enough to make it worth it. Once you start getting to the VTechs and States, it’s dilutive (or a purely TV market diversification play). I think the fact that these 4 (maybe + Miami) are the last majorly high quality brands on the board will get all four picked up quick. Especially if ESPN is involved and doesn’t want to lose any of those four from its orbit to Fox.

Hmm. Could it?

Here's the pre-Duke résumé of the last long-term coach at Duke:

1976–1979	Banks HS (AL) (assistant)
1980–1981	Banks HS (AL)
1982	Tennessee (assistant)
1983–1998	Tennessee (TE, RB, QB, PGC/QB, OC/QB, AHC/OC/QB)
1998–2004	Ole Miss (Head Coach)
2006–2007	Tennessee (AHC/OC/QB)

Cutcliffe turned 50 in the year his Ole Miss job ended.

And here's the Diaz résumé to date:

1998–1999	Florida State (GA)
2000–2007	NC State (GA, LB, S/ST)
2006–2009	Middle Tennessee (DC/S, DC/LB)
2010	Mississippi State (DC/LB)
2011–2013	Texas (DC/LB)
2014	Louisiana Tech (DC/LB)
2015	Mississippi State (DC/LB)
2016–2018	Miami (FL) (DC)
2019–2021	Miami (FL) (Head Coach)
2022–2023	Penn State (DC/LB)

Diaz is 50 years old right now. That track record doesn't scream "long term" to me.

Ok, but you’re missing a major, major similarity between these resumes. Both have head coaching experience at “better” programs and did not succeed! They both know that the grass isn’t always greener. Manny does seem like a more ambitious type relative to Cut, but if he sees a path to a consistent winner and likes Durham, he could be our Clawson.

Also note that list I sent before. Clawson, Grobe, Shaw (can add Fitzgerald in there too but he was an alum so a bit different). These are like minded schools that found long-term options. We already have one datapoint for us in Cut. Can 100% find another. There is more than enough precedent with these cases

 

[sagegrouse]

Love all this conversation. This is exactly what I was hoping for! Also finally figured out the quote thing, kinda cool feature.


This is a really interesting point and idea that I wasn’t aware of. There could be a path to pulling in a few of the better B12 brands, but I would think ONLY if the payout numbers for their next contract are underwhelming AND there is line of sight into a stable ACC core of reputable brands remaining. B12 defectors would be entering a cluster with the ACC at that point as you’d be closing in on 2036 (the clear outside date for FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA). But if people thought the ACC would be the survivor of the two conferences, you might be able to lure.

I think the biggest risk is that B12 schools may think of themselves as the survivors over the ACC. The B12 likely won’t have any teams barking to leave at that point, unlike the ACC in which they’d be sorting things out. The B12 also has a lot of good-not-great brands (OSU, KU, KSU, ASU, CU, Utah, TCU, WVU, etc). They also have a lot more large public schools (ones above + UCF, Houston, Cincinnati). If it’s just the watered down ACC schools left after a raid of the top 4-5 brands, I think the B12 may actually have a more profitable core of programs top-to-bottom. The scenario where the B12 defects would rely on a bad contract for the B12, but idk if the ACC’s would be any better when up when you have so many small private schools remaining (BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, SMU). It’s definitely a possibility. This is what I was talking about in ideas!


All these points are valid, but I think the FOMO for the BIG and SEC will be too great to not rush in for FSU, Clemson, UVA, and UNC. Those four (+ Miami) are the last teams that can possibly grow the pie enough to make it worth it. Once you start getting to the VTechs and States, it’s dilutive (or a purely TV market diversification play). I think the fact that these 4 (maybe + Miami) are the last majorly high quality brands on the board will get all four picked up quick. Especially if ESPN is involved and doesn’t want to lose any of those four from its orbit to Fox.


Ok, but you’re missing a major, major similarity between these resumes. Both have head coaching experience at “better” programs and did not succeed! They both know that the grass isn’t always greener. Manny does seem like a more ambitious type relative to Cut, but if he sees a path to a consistent winner and likes Durham, he could be our Clawson.

Also note that list I sent before. Clawson, Grobe, Shaw (can add Fitzgerald in there too but he was an alum so a bit different). These are like minded schools that found long-term options. We already have one datapoint for us in Cut. Can 100% find another. There is more than enough precedent with these cases

A word on behalf of "small private schools:" they seem to have intense loyalty among alumni. The main problem is that they disperse -- i.e., don't live close to the football stadium. Duke is an extreme example, I expect, but it applies to other private schools.

ND and USC are exceptions. ND may also be sui generis (I mean, 80+ thousand to play Duke), but it is close to Chicago.

While USC is in LA and has lots of local alums it also is not "small," as in 50,000 students (20,000 undergrads).

 

[Maged]

One thing we may be discounting is the possibility that the Duke basketball brand is so transcendent that it spills over to football in terms of national attention. Once we get past the stigma of 50 years of only sporadic success, people may tune in because it's Duke and they are used to rooting, hard, in favor of or against the Duke brand. That may be why our TV ratings were better than expected last year. We will never match a large state school in ratings but might equal a Miami and do a lot better than a Northwestern.

 

[ChillinDuke]

This is a really interesting point and idea that I wasn’t aware of. There could be a path to pulling in a few of the better B12 brands, but I would think ONLY if the payout numbers for their next contract are underwhelming AND there is line of sight into a stable ACC core of reputable brands remaining. B12 defectors would be entering a cluster with the ACC at that point as you’d be closing in on 2036 (the clear outside date for FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA). But if people thought the ACC would be the survivor of the two conferences, you might be able to lure.

I think the biggest risk is that B12 schools may think of themselves as the survivors over the ACC. The B12 likely won’t have any teams barking to leave at that point, unlike the ACC in which they’d be sorting things out. The B12 also has a lot of good-not-great brands (OSU, KU, KSU, ASU, CU, Utah, TCU, WVU, etc). They also have a lot more large public schools (ones above + UCF, Houston, Cincinnati). If it’s just the watered down ACC schools left after a raid of the top 4-5 brands, I think the B12 may actually have a more profitable core of programs top-to-bottom. The scenario where the B12 defects would rely on a bad contract for the B12, but idk if the ACC’s would be any better when up when you have so many small private schools remaining (BC, Wake, Duke, Syracuse, Stanford, SMU). It’s definitely a possibility. This is what I was talking about in ideas!

To further the conversation, I agree it's a tough needle to thread. But I would be trying, if I were intelligent and also a commissioner, of which I am neither. This is why you get paid the big bucks - to broker a deal of this magnitude and complexity.

You would likely only get it accomplished if you pacify FSU/Clemson into staying (and quietly UNC/UVA/maybe others). To do that, you'd have to primarily (a) get their payouts up and to a lesser extent (b) pitch an ACC that is arguably of a national marketing caliber equal to or near the B1G/SEC.

You can maybe accomplish (a) through a combination of a media package that includes, say, 4 premier B12 teams defecting (thereby watering down that conference to a point that can't realistically be replenished - there are only so many attractive teams left without a seat) and crafting an intra-conference payout package that is not equal. Maybe. It's a tough pill. And a small needle hole. Pick your analogy. But the ACC is in a tight spot, and all the outs are tough. So I don't view this as significantly crazier than any other proposed solution.

Accomplishing (b) is much squishier. You're selling a dream, to some extent. A splashy Amazon deal, e.g., would help. Maybe pick up a Canadian school and start pitching the conference as international. I'm mostly kidding - but you catch my drift.

I have serious doubts that we have a commissioner that can pull off such a trick. And I have equally serious doubts that FSU/Clemson would even play ball - as that's a true gating item. But I'd like to think that a revenue share to certain schools that is equal (or close) to the SEC/B1G should go a long way in pacifying them. Whether that's a forever revenue share or subject to certain accomplishments year to year or something altogether different, well, remember I never said I was intelligent.

- Chillin

 

[sagegrouse]

To further the conversation, I agree it's a tough needle to thread. But I would be trying, if I were intelligent and also a commissioner, of which I am neither. This is why you get paid the big bucks - to broker a deal of this magnitude and complexity.

You would likely only get it accomplished if you pacify FSU/Clemson into staying (and quietly UNC/UVA/maybe others). To do that, you'd have to primarily (a) get their payouts up and to a lesser extent (b) pitch an ACC that is arguably of a national marketing caliber equal to or near the B1G/SEC.

You can maybe accomplish (a) through a combination of a media package that includes, say, 4 premier B12 teams defecting (thereby watering down that conference to a point that can't realistically be replenished - there are only so many attractive teams left without a seat) and crafting an intra-conference payout package that is not equal. Maybe. It's a tough pill. And a small needle hole. Pick your analogy. But the ACC is in a tight spot, and all the outs are tough. So I don't view this as significantly crazier than any other proposed solution.

Accomplishing (b) is much squishier. You're selling a dream, to some extent. A splashy Amazon deal, e.g., would help. Maybe pick up a Canadian school and start pitching the conference as international. I'm mostly kidding - but you catch my drift.

I have serious doubts that we have a commissioner that can pull off such a trick. And I have equally serious doubts that FSU/Clemson would even play ball - as that's a true gating item. But I'd like to think that a revenue share to certain schools that is equal (or close) to the SEC/B1G should go a long way in pacifying them. Whether that's a forever revenue share or subject to certain accomplishments year to year or something altogether different, well, remember I never said I was intelligent.

- Chillin

The path of least resistance for the ACC is to modify the payouts to accommodate the schools that bring more to the table -- as in football playoffs/major bowls and deep runs into the NCAAT for men's basketball. (Hey, Duke has to get some benefits.) There may need to be some retro payoffs as part of a FSU-Clemson settlement (also to other schools). Although I think the suit is groundless -- "groundless" not necessarily the same thing as "stupid," as the two schools may get some $$$ for their efforts.

 

[dlmzzz]

I think the FOMO for the BIG and SEC will be too great to not rush in for FSU, Clemson, UVA, and UNC. Those four (+ Miami) are the last teams that can possibly grow the pie enough to make it worth it. Once you start getting to the VTechs and States, it’s dilutive (or a purely TV market diversification play). I think the fact that these 4 (maybe + Miami) are the last majorly high quality brands on the board will get all four picked up quick. Especially if ESPN is involved and doesn’t want to lose any of those four from its orbit to Fox.

I agree with you on the FOMO -- the B1G and the SEC won't want the other to get significant properties. But I don't believe that ANY ACC programs will grow the pie enough for those conferences to justify a full share. Even FSU and Clemson would be dilutive. I think Notre Dame is the only property (in the ACC or elsewhere) not already in those conferences that would lead to a gain in revenue paid to the members if the new member gets paid a full share.

FSU and Clemson may think of themselves as a big deal, but what will the SEC and B1G think of them as equivalent to? Missouri or Ole Miss? Iowa or Wisconsin? They will see an FSU team that can't beat Georgia Tech, and a Clemson team that doesn't embrace the transfer portal. We're not talking about adding Texas, Oklahoma, or USC here.

You would likely only get it accomplished if you pacify FSU/Clemson into staying (and quietly UNC/UVA/maybe others). To do that, you'd have to primarily (a) get their payouts up and to a lesser extent (b) pitch an ACC that is arguably of a national marketing caliber equal to or near the B1G/SEC.

I don't see how that amount of ground can be made up. The B1G/SEC are the tier 1 conferences, the ACC and Big12 are the tier 2 conferences, and everyone else is far below. I think the tier 1 conference payout is in the range of double that of the tier 2 conferences. The ACC & Big12 have been trying for the past 10 (20?) years to raise their profile, and have continued to lose ground over that time.

OK, that's not a completely fair statement. The Big12 has been able to raise their reputation to be the best conference in basketball, but still had their big football teams flee.

 

[LeadingEdge]

I think FSU's desire to leave is about more than money. I think it wants to be a member of the Big Boy Football Club (i.e., either the SEC or B10) for pride reasons.

A thought exercise: If FSU was free to leave and it could join the SEC or B10 for only the same TV and CFP money it would get from the ACC, and if it would be locked into that lower payout for a decade, would it leave? I say it would.

Perhaps Clemson is in the same mental boat, although I sense it has less desire to leave the ACC for image reasons and that it's really just about the money for Clemson. After all, Clemson is a charter ACC member.

If either school breaks free, I doubt it gets offered a pay raise by the SEC of B10 because those conferences won't dilute the per-school payout. If they move under that circumstance, my theory would be proven.

***

As a Hoo, it's flattering to think the SEC or B10 might pick up U.Va. if available, although I'd prefer to stay in the ACC (provided Duke and UNC are there), but I don't see why U.Va. would be taken if Stanford and Cal were left behind. Our football has sucked for ages, and we play to a half-empty stadium, which is both a cause and an effect.

Even if U.Va. (or Duke) could produce a few consecutive winning seasons and consequently up attendance 20%, I don't think that would make either school attractive to the SEC or B10 as a "football school." It takes a couple or more decades to earn that rep, and I think full stadiums even in lean times are a prerequisite for SEC/B10 interest given how big those conferences have become already.

 

[SkyBrickey]

So the B12's media deal that expires in 2031 is with Fox and ESPN. Yeah, it does seem like the bold play for the ACC and ESPN would be to try to lure away the top handful of B12 schools when that contract expires in conjunction with a new major ACC-ESPN deal.

But while that could preserve the ACC, Duke will still almost certainly be looking at a reduced payout (a patial share) vs the top football schools, right? It's just a matter of time before the market forces pay us for the true value of our two revenue sports relative to other conference members - whatever conference that may be...

 

[lotusland]

I think FSU's desire to leave is about more than money. I think it wants to be a member of the Big Boy Football Club (i.e., either the SEC or B10) for pride reasons.

A thought exercise: If FSU was free to leave and it could join the SEC or B10 for only the same TV and CFP money it would get from the ACC, and if it would be locked into that lower payout for a decade, would it leave? I say it would.

Perhaps Clemson is in the same mental boat, although I sense it has less desire to leave the ACC for image reasons and that it's really just about the money for Clemson. After all, Clemson is a charter ACC member.

If either school breaks free, I doubt it gets offered a pay raise by the SEC of B10 because those conferences won't dilute the per-school payout. If they move under that circumstance, my theory would be proven.

***

As a Hoo, it's flattering to think the SEC or B10 might pick up U.Va. if available, although I'd prefer to stay in the ACC (provided Duke and UNC are there), but I don't see why U.Va. would be taken if Stanford and Cal were left behind. Our football has sucked for ages, and we play to a half-empty stadium, which is both a cause and an effect.

Even if U.Va. (or Duke) could produce a few consecutive winning seasons and consequently up attendance 20%, I don't think that would make either school attractive to the SEC or B10 as a "football school." It takes a couple or more decades to earn that rep, and I think full stadiums even in lean times are a prerequisite for SEC/B10 interest given how big those conferences have become already.

Can the GOR be terminated by majority vote? Would Cal, SMU and Stanford get a vote? ND?

Wondering if FSU, Clem, Cheaters, and UVA could work a deal with the BIG, for instance, to bring 4-6 additional schools at various payouts and vote down the GOR? Would 6-8 additional ACC schools leave for the same or slightly more money plus stability? It’s a lot easier to plan when you’re not looking over your shoulder.

They would have the 8-10 best money ACC schools, in their new SE division, preserving rivalries and limiting travel. It’s a win/win for everyone except the ACC schools left behind. It would also further move control of college athletics to the 2 major conferences.

 

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Can the GOR be terminated by majority vote? Would Cal, SMU and Stanford get a vote? ND?

Wondering if FSU, Clem, Cheaters, and UVA could work a deal with the BIG, for instance, to bring 4-6 additional schools at various payouts and vote down the GOR? Would 6-8 additional ACC schools leave for the same or slightly more money plus stability? It’s a lot easier to plan when you’re not looking over your shoulder.

They would have the 8-10 best money ACC schools, in their new SE division, preserving rivalries and limiting travel. It’s a win/win for everyone except the ACC schools left behind. It would also further move control of college athletics to the 2 major conferences.

I've been dubious about the strength of GOR versus the membership votes for awhile. But it seems unlikely that recent new members would vote to break up the conference.

I assume that was part of the strategy of adding the new members. A group of seven schools that want out lose their power when three new schools are added that were desperate enough to join that they accept lower payouts.

 

[lotusland]

I've been dubious about the strength of GOR versus the membership votes for awhile. But it seems unlikely that recent new members would vote to break up the conference.

I assume that was part of the strategy of adding the new members. A group of seven schools that want out lose their power when three new schools are added that were desperate enough to join that they accept lower payouts.

Could be a great opportunity for Duke to renew the rivalry with our friends from MD.

 

[dlmzzz]

Could be a great opportunity for Duke to renew the rivalry with our friends from MD.