(03-02-2015 11:20 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Holy Cross staying out was a huge blunder by them. Holy Cross actually was a regional power back in the 70's. HC was a national power in the late 40's. Their academics would've been fine...BC actually has upgraded their academic profile after joining the Big East.

Note: One glaring error in the article: Cuse didn't not cast the vote to leave Pen State out...they wanted them in.

https://sportslifer.wordpress.com/2009/0...-of-hoops/

Well maybe they didn't want to continue that. Chicago was once a national power in football. So were the Ivy League schools.

(03-01-2015 12:02 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I'm going to add, and possibly going out on a limb here, UTA (UT-Arlington) leaving the WAC for the Sunbelt. Despite some stability issues of the WAC at the time due to trying to solve the FBS issue.
Both UTA and UALR get lost in a FBS conference. UTA fits the profile of the metro WAC with easy flights to get to and from other WAC locations.

I think the Sunbelt was a good move for UT Arlington; we have some peer universities such as Texas State and Georgia State and some other decent universities in the Belt. I can't even name who is in the newly configured WAC. The fact that most of the other universities in the Belt play f-ball makes no difference when, say, our basketball team takes the floor against a Sunbelt opponent.

(02-26-2015 06:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 05:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 05:11 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 11:33 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  The B12 had no chance of ever getting FSU, let alone founding member Clemson. Dont get confused the outspoken lament of a foolish uninformed FSU booster with the feelings of the FSU administration.

You underestimate how serious it was. Clemson had 2 board meetings discussing it and FSU had at least one. Now it was never in the Big 12's hands and was probably never close to happening, but it was seriously discussed.

I had never read or heard that before, but I would be very interested in reading up on this if you have a link.

I don't believe there was ever an actual official discussion held, but rest assured it was definitely option B. if the ACC added UConn and gave us another basketball solution to a football problem like they did the last expansion. At that point the BOT meeting was just a formality. It probably would have accelerated the retirement of our president at the time, but it was going to happen.

And we wouldn't have went alone.

I get the Tigernet postings for Clemson. They actually appointed a realignment committee to consider options. Saying they held no official discussions is a red herring of sorts in that no school until they have made up their mind holds "official discussions" to prevent any tampering lawsuits from emerging against the inquiring conference. With the SEC you must ask for an application for membership if we aren't interested in you, but if we are we mail you an application, but don't talk to you (officially) until you have returned it. Once application is made all discussions (if you desire) can be held above board. But 2 and a half to 3 years ago Tigernet was issuing frequent updates about realignment potentialities and the appointing of the realignment committee to look at the possibilities was just one of several overt acts that indicated the seriousness of their intentions.

I love it when people frequently post here that the SEC turned down WVU twice. We didn't. They inquired and we sent them a list of criteria that would have to be met to be considered for SEC membership. Their application was tabled until WVU met those criteria. They were not turned down. And that's not just the SEC, but most conferences. It's bad business to burn bridges. Recommendations are made much like the PAC has made with regards to Texas Tech. The PAC didn't officially turn down the Texahoma deal, they just acknowledged that such a move didn't have the support required and they tabled it. That is not the same as being told no. What is actually communicated is simply, "Not at this time."

Clemson has inquired, and been the subject of inquiries a number of times. But both Bullet and Kaplony are correct that the last time around it was serious. But you won't get a link because nothing official was released. You might go and search some of the old Tigernet archival threads if you like and you will likely find plenty there.

The only outright, public rejection involving conference membership that I can recall was Notre Dame turning down the Big Ten invitation in 1999.

Rejection?

(03-03-2015 11:19 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Rejection?

As in, ND turned down the Big Ten's offer of membership in 1999.

You don't recall this?

I think it means what I said.




"Notre Dame has a distinct identity that is the product of more than a century and a half of institutional independence," Father Malloy said in describing the decision. "As a Catholic university with a national constituency, we believe independence continues to be our best way forward, not just in athletics, but, first and foremost, in fulfillment of our academic aspirations. . . .

The decision, Father Malloy explained, ultimately hinged on the institutional identity of Notre Dame. "Just as the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin or Illinois have core identities as the flagship institutions of their states, so Notre Dame has a core identity, and at that core are these characteristics--Catholic, private, independent," he said.

As a Big Ten and CIC member, Father Malloy pointed out, "Notre Dame would be one of only two private universities . . . and the only university with a religious affiliation." Notre Dame also, he said, would be by far the smallest of the affiliated institutions.

The Catholic character of Notre Dame, Father Malloy said, " . . . gives a unique perspective to our educational mission and permeates our campus culture. Our most basic decisions concerning student life, our faculty, our core curriculum, even the fields of scholarship and research in which we aspire to make a significant contribution, all reflect the fact that we are a Catholic university.

"These differences in identity between Notre Dame and the member institutions of the Big Ten are essential, not incidental," Father Malloy said. "They are not qualities that are amenable to change, nor would we change them. Notre Dame always will be Catholic and always will be private. Even in terms of size, we will not become appreciably larger. Given these realities, we have had to ask ourselves the fundamental question, does this core identity of Notre Dame as Catholic, private, and independent seem a match for an association of universities--even a splendid association of great universities--that are uniformly secular, predominantly state institutions and with a long heritage of conference affiliation.

"Our answer to that question, in the final analysis, is no."

11 pages and nobody has mentioned the MAC inviting Temple as a bad move.

(03-02-2015 02:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 11:20 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Holy Cross staying out was a huge blunder by them. Holy Cross actually was a regional power back in the 70's. HC was a national power in the late 40's. Their academics would've been fine...BC actually has upgraded their academic profile after joining the Big East.

Note: One glaring error in the article: Cuse didn't not cast the vote to leave Pen State out...they wanted them in.

https://sportslifer.wordpress.com/2009/0...-of-hoops/

Well maybe they didn't want to continue that. Chicago was once a national power in football. So were the Ivy League schools.

That was their call...but the cost is they have a lower national profile now.

WVU. Had they simply committed to a total academic overhaul and fan behavior remediation they had a shot at the ACC. Instead... Enjoy the plane flights to Ames, IA and Lubbock, TX.

(03-03-2015 01:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 02:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 11:20 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Holy Cross staying out was a huge blunder by them. Holy Cross actually was a regional power back in the 70's. HC was a national power in the late 40's. Their academics would've been fine...BC actually has upgraded their academic profile after joining the Big East.

Note: One glaring error in the article: Cuse didn't not cast the vote to leave Pen State out...they wanted them in.

https://sportslifer.wordpress.com/2009/0...-of-hoops/

Well maybe they didn't want to continue that. Chicago was once a national power in football. So were the Ivy League schools.

That was their call...but the cost is they have a lower national profile now.

The Ivy League has a lower national profile? Athletically? Sure. Every other aspect? No. Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Penn, Princeton, Columbia, and Dartmouth aren't hurting for name recognition and/or people that think that they're good schools (other than those lost souls who don't differentiate between research spending and academics - then Dartmouth and maybe Brown are hurting).

(03-03-2015 11:39 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:19 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Rejection?

As in, ND turned down the Big Ten's offer of membership in 1999.

You don't recall this?

I think it means what I said.




"Notre Dame has a distinct identity that is the product of more than a century and a half of institutional independence," Father Malloy said in describing the decision. "As a Catholic university with a national constituency, we believe independence continues to be our best way forward, not just in athletics, but, first and foremost, in fulfillment of our academic aspirations. . . .

The decision, Father Malloy explained, ultimately hinged on the institutional identity of Notre Dame. "Just as the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin or Illinois have core identities as the flagship institutions of their states, so Notre Dame has a core identity, and at that core are these characteristics--Catholic, private, independent," he said.

As a Big Ten and CIC member, Father Malloy pointed out, "Notre Dame would be one of only two private universities . . . and the only university with a religious affiliation." Notre Dame also, he said, would be by far the smallest of the affiliated institutions.

The Catholic character of Notre Dame, Father Malloy said, " . . . gives a unique perspective to our educational mission and permeates our campus culture. Our most basic decisions concerning student life, our faculty, our core curriculum, even the fields of scholarship and research in which we aspire to make a significant contribution, all reflect the fact that we are a Catholic university.

"These differences in identity between Notre Dame and the member institutions of the Big Ten are essential, not incidental," Father Malloy said. "They are not qualities that are amenable to change, nor would we change them. Notre Dame always will be Catholic and always will be private. Even in terms of size, we will not become appreciably larger. Given these realities, we have had to ask ourselves the fundamental question, does this core identity of Notre Dame as Catholic, private, and independent seem a match for an association of universities--even a splendid association of great universities--that are uniformly secular, predominantly state institutions and with a long heritage of conference affiliation.

"Our answer to that question, in the final analysis, is no."

Of course, the administration, AD and faculty all said yes. Then the board overwhelmingly said no. The only reason the Big 10 got a no is that Notre Dame had already said yes.

(03-03-2015 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:39 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:19 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Rejection?

As in, ND turned down the Big Ten's offer of membership in 1999.

You don't recall this?

I think it means what I said.




"Notre Dame has a distinct identity that is the product of more than a century and a half of institutional independence," Father Malloy said in describing the decision. "As a Catholic university with a national constituency, we believe independence continues to be our best way forward, not just in athletics, but, first and foremost, in fulfillment of our academic aspirations. . . .

The decision, Father Malloy explained, ultimately hinged on the institutional identity of Notre Dame. "Just as the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin or Illinois have core identities as the flagship institutions of their states, so Notre Dame has a core identity, and at that core are these characteristics--Catholic, private, independent," he said.

As a Big Ten and CIC member, Father Malloy pointed out, "Notre Dame would be one of only two private universities . . . and the only university with a religious affiliation." Notre Dame also, he said, would be by far the smallest of the affiliated institutions.

The Catholic character of Notre Dame, Father Malloy said, " . . . gives a unique perspective to our educational mission and permeates our campus culture. Our most basic decisions concerning student life, our faculty, our core curriculum, even the fields of scholarship and research in which we aspire to make a significant contribution, all reflect the fact that we are a Catholic university.

"These differences in identity between Notre Dame and the member institutions of the Big Ten are essential, not incidental," Father Malloy said. "They are not qualities that are amenable to change, nor would we change them. Notre Dame always will be Catholic and always will be private. Even in terms of size, we will not become appreciably larger. Given these realities, we have had to ask ourselves the fundamental question, does this core identity of Notre Dame as Catholic, private, and independent seem a match for an association of universities--even a splendid association of great universities--that are uniformly secular, predominantly state institutions and with a long heritage of conference affiliation.

"Our answer to that question, in the final analysis, is no."

Of course, the administration, AD and faculty all said yes. Then the board overwhelmingly said no. The only reason the Big 10 got a no is that Notre Dame had already said yes.

The university is run by the lay Board of Trustees.

There was a non-binding vote of the faculty senate. That was not a "yes" at all.

The alumni, boosters and the Board were overwhelmingly against it and said "No".

That is a rejection, sorry. A very public one as I recall.

If it wasn't a "no" and a very binding, final, overwhelming rejection, then I missed all of the ND Big Ten membership activities since 1999 somehow.

(03-03-2015 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 01:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 02:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 11:20 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Holy Cross staying out was a huge blunder by them. Holy Cross actually was a regional power back in the 70's. HC was a national power in the late 40's. Their academics would've been fine...BC actually has upgraded their academic profile after joining the Big East.

Note: One glaring error in the article: Cuse didn't not cast the vote to leave Pen State out...they wanted them in.

https://sportslifer.wordpress.com/2009/0...-of-hoops/

Well maybe they didn't want to continue that. Chicago was once a national power in football. So were the Ivy League schools.

That was their call...but the cost is they have a lower national profile now.

The Ivy League has a lower national profile? Athletically? Sure. Every other aspect? No. Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Penn, Princeton, Columbia, and Dartmouth aren't hurting for name recognition and/or people that think that they're good schools (other than those lost souls who don't differentiate between research spending and academics - then Dartmouth and maybe Brown are hurting).

Holy Cross isn't in the Ivy League and gave up. Worcester is a medium sized working class city that would've supported an elevated profile IMHO. Maybe they are happy...but I know one former player thinks it was a spineless decision.

(03-03-2015 03:48 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:39 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 11:19 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Rejection?

As in, ND turned down the Big Ten's offer of membership in 1999.

You don't recall this?

I think it means what I said.




"Notre Dame has a distinct identity that is the product of more than a century and a half of institutional independence," Father Malloy said in describing the decision. "As a Catholic university with a national constituency, we believe independence continues to be our best way forward, not just in athletics, but, first and foremost, in fulfillment of our academic aspirations. . . .

The decision, Father Malloy explained, ultimately hinged on the institutional identity of Notre Dame. "Just as the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin or Illinois have core identities as the flagship institutions of their states, so Notre Dame has a core identity, and at that core are these characteristics--Catholic, private, independent," he said.

As a Big Ten and CIC member, Father Malloy pointed out, "Notre Dame would be one of only two private universities . . . and the only university with a religious affiliation." Notre Dame also, he said, would be by far the smallest of the affiliated institutions.

The Catholic character of Notre Dame, Father Malloy said, " . . . gives a unique perspective to our educational mission and permeates our campus culture. Our most basic decisions concerning student life, our faculty, our core curriculum, even the fields of scholarship and research in which we aspire to make a significant contribution, all reflect the fact that we are a Catholic university.

"These differences in identity between Notre Dame and the member institutions of the Big Ten are essential, not incidental," Father Malloy said. "They are not qualities that are amenable to change, nor would we change them. Notre Dame always will be Catholic and always will be private. Even in terms of size, we will not become appreciably larger. Given these realities, we have had to ask ourselves the fundamental question, does this core identity of Notre Dame as Catholic, private, and independent seem a match for an association of universities--even a splendid association of great universities--that are uniformly secular, predominantly state institutions and with a long heritage of conference affiliation.

"Our answer to that question, in the final analysis, is no."

Of course, the administration, AD and faculty all said yes. Then the board overwhelmingly said no. The only reason the Big 10 got a no is that Notre Dame had already said yes.

The university is run by the lay Board of Trustees.

There was a non-binding vote of the faculty senate. That was not a "yes" at all.

The alumni, boosters and the Board were overwhelmingly against it and said "No".

That is a rejection, sorry. A very public one as I recall.

If it wasn't a "no" and a very binding, final, overwhelming rejection, then I missed all of the ND Big Ten membership activities since 1999 somehow.

Its just kind of a hypocritical speech by your president when he actually supported the move. The point is a bunch of former students and trustees overwhelmingly had that point of view. The people who ran it on a day-to-day basis-the President, AD and faculty, at that time, did not.

(03-03-2015 03:48 PM)TerryD Wrote:  That is a rejection, sorry. A very public one as I recall.

If it wasn't a "no" and a very binding, final, overwhelming rejection, then I missed all of the ND Big Ten membership activities since 1999 somehow.

Do you really think B1G passed a note under the desk that said "will you be my friend"? The only way it got to that point where it could go public was if leadership thought there was mutual interest. To characterize it as an "overwhelming rejection" and to marginalize the senate vote belies logic.

(03-03-2015 12:40 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  11 pages and nobody has mentioned the MAC inviting Temple as a bad move.

As far as hurting the MAC? Not really seeing it as being that big of a deal. The MAC received money and home basketball games from a decent basketball school. They allowed for easy wins at the start and by the end were able to get to bowl games and win some. The MAC did end up inviting up UMass but even that was not really all that harmful to the MAC as it brought up a school that is not in their own area and thus later on they are probably going to end up hurting schools in non-MAC related conferences more than it hurts the MAC.

I wouldn't say it great but I am having a hard time getting a real wound from this. Maybe a paper cut do we really count that as a wound?

As for the FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 thing...I am in the camp that it was never going to happen. It was never close.

BUT...that doesn't mean that it wasn't real/serious. It is only now clearly a "never going to happen" because we know now how history worked out. But people forget that there was a small window in which the following scenario existed:

a) Big 12 (after the PAC) signed a $20M/team TV deal, with the ACC stuck on $13M, putting the next closest conference 50% higher than them in money
b) ACC had voted to go to 9 conference games over the objections of FSU, Clemson, GT
c) Big 12/SEC had signed "Champions Bowl" deal to the tune of $4M (B12) or $2.8M (SEC), leaving the ACC with no apparent partner, and facing the prospect of a G5 partner or no access bowl at all
d) The discussion of the playoff payouts were all indicating some kind of past performance - based payout system (like the NCAAT) which implied a considerably lower payment to the ACC (since this was coming right off the end of FSU's Bowden decline and before Clemson's ascension)

It wasn't that hard to think we were looking at a universe where $20M more per year would have been on the table with a move. That's going to be discussed at some level.

Of course now, we see what did happen...
a) ESPN raised the ACC's payment to (roughly estimating based on reports) to $17m for Syracuse/Pitt (wink wink), $18-18.5M with the addition of ND, to around $20M with the GOR. If the ACC is still a tick or two behind the Big 12 and PAC, it's negligible by the time you look at travel
b) The ACC reverted back to 8 conference games
c) The ACC put together the Orange Bowl, which stays in play from an exposure level, while cutting the per-school deficit to the other bowls considerably (while still paying less)
d) The playoffs make all five conferences an equal partner. This is in my mind the most underrated part of the whole situation, because none of the discussion was around this type of disbursement. Given the ACC's BCS performance to this point, this may have been Swofford's greatest work. I've always wondered if the Orange Bowl share with the SEC and B1G was a sweetener to make sure this happened, but we'll never know.
e) The ACC ended up finishing the BCS era and entering the playoff era on a pretty nice run.

If you KNEW all of those things were going to happen, then of course it's obvious that FSU and Clemson were never going to the Big 12, and it was never really close. But there was a short window there where it was all very unclear that it would work out that way, so I'm sure some very serious discussions took place at FSU and Clemson about the future.

When it's all said and done, I think it will be a positive thing for The Big Ten that they never landed Notre Dame. That isn't a slam on Notre Dame but they aren't what they used to be AND they seriously do not fit the mold with The Big Ten. I actually like Maryland and Rutgers for The Big Ten better. Notre Dame is much better suited for The ACC. It all worked out.

(03-04-2015 10:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  As for the FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 thing...I am in the camp that it was never going to happen. It was never close.

BUT...that doesn't mean that it wasn't real/serious. It is only now clearly a "never going to happen" because we know now how history worked out. But people forget that there was a small window in which the following scenario existed:

a) Big 12 (after the PAC) signed a $20M/team TV deal, with the ACC stuck on $13M, putting the next closest conference 50% higher than them in money
b) ACC had voted to go to 9 conference games over the objections of FSU, Clemson, GT
c) Big 12/SEC had signed "Champions Bowl" deal to the tune of $4M (B12) or $2.8M (SEC), leaving the ACC with no apparent partner, and facing the prospect of a G5 partner or no access bowl at all
d) The discussion of the playoff payouts were all indicating some kind of past performance - based payout system (like the NCAAT) which implied a considerably lower payment to the ACC (since this was coming right off the end of FSU's Bowden decline and before Clemson's ascension)

It wasn't that hard to think we were looking at a universe where $20M more per year would have been on the table with a move. That's going to be discussed at some level.

Of course now, we see what did happen...
a) ESPN raised the ACC's payment to (roughly estimating based on reports) to $17m for Syracuse/Pitt (wink wink), $18-18.5M with the addition of ND, to around $20M with the GOR. If the ACC is still a tick or two behind the Big 12 and PAC, it's negligible by the time you look at travel
b) The ACC reverted back to 8 conference games
c) The ACC put together the Orange Bowl, which stays in play from an exposure level, while cutting the per-school deficit to the other bowls considerably (while still paying less)
d) The playoffs make all five conferences an equal partner. This is in my mind the most underrated part of the whole situation, because none of the discussion was around this type of disbursement. Given the ACC's BCS performance to this point, this may have been Swofford's greatest work. I've always wondered if the Orange Bowl share with the SEC and B1G was a sweetener to make sure this happened, but we'll never know.
e) The ACC ended up finishing the BCS era and entering the playoff era on a pretty nice run.

If you KNEW all of those things were going to happen, then of course it's obvious that FSU and Clemson were never going to the Big 12, and it was never really close. But there was a short window there where it was all very unclear that it would work out that way, so I'm sure some very serious discussions took place at FSU and Clemson about the future.

There was a better chance of Florida State landing in The Big Ten then there was a chance of them ending up in the big 12.

(03-04-2015 12:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  As for the FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 thing...I am in the camp that it was never going to happen. It was never close.

BUT...that doesn't mean that it wasn't real/serious. It is only now clearly a "never going to happen" because we know now how history worked out. But people forget that there was a small window in which the following scenario existed:

a) Big 12 (after the PAC) signed a $20M/team TV deal, with the ACC stuck on $13M, putting the next closest conference 50% higher than them in money
b) ACC had voted to go to 9 conference games over the objections of FSU, Clemson, GT
c) Big 12/SEC had signed "Champions Bowl" deal to the tune of $4M (B12) or $2.8M (SEC), leaving the ACC with no apparent partner, and facing the prospect of a G5 partner or no access bowl at all
d) The discussion of the playoff payouts were all indicating some kind of past performance - based payout system (like the NCAAT) which implied a considerably lower payment to the ACC (since this was coming right off the end of FSU's Bowden decline and before Clemson's ascension)

It wasn't that hard to think we were looking at a universe where $20M more per year would have been on the table with a move. That's going to be discussed at some level.

Of course now, we see what did happen...
a) ESPN raised the ACC's payment to (roughly estimating based on reports) to $17m for Syracuse/Pitt (wink wink), $18-18.5M with the addition of ND, to around $20M with the GOR. If the ACC is still a tick or two behind the Big 12 and PAC, it's negligible by the time you look at travel
b) The ACC reverted back to 8 conference games
c) The ACC put together the Orange Bowl, which stays in play from an exposure level, while cutting the per-school deficit to the other bowls considerably (while still paying less)
d) The playoffs make all five conferences an equal partner. This is in my mind the most underrated part of the whole situation, because none of the discussion was around this type of disbursement. Given the ACC's BCS performance to this point, this may have been Swofford's greatest work. I've always wondered if the Orange Bowl share with the SEC and B1G was a sweetener to make sure this happened, but we'll never know.
e) The ACC ended up finishing the BCS era and entering the playoff era on a pretty nice run.

If you KNEW all of those things were going to happen, then of course it's obvious that FSU and Clemson were never going to the Big 12, and it was never really close. But there was a short window there where it was all very unclear that it would work out that way, so I'm sure some very serious discussions took place at FSU and Clemson about the future.

There was a better chance of Florida State landing in The Big Ten then there was a chance of them ending up in the big 12.

In the sense that at some point the B1G could have probably made an offer that FSU would have accepted or seriously considered, and the Big 12 really never actually could have, that's probably true.

(03-04-2015 02:36 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 12:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  As for the FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 thing...I am in the camp that it was never going to happen. It was never close.

BUT...that doesn't mean that it wasn't real/serious. It is only now clearly a "never going to happen" because we know now how history worked out. But people forget that there was a small window in which the following scenario existed:

a) Big 12 (after the PAC) signed a $20M/team TV deal, with the ACC stuck on $13M, putting the next closest conference 50% higher than them in money
b) ACC had voted to go to 9 conference games over the objections of FSU, Clemson, GT
c) Big 12/SEC had signed "Champions Bowl" deal to the tune of $4M (B12) or $2.8M (SEC), leaving the ACC with no apparent partner, and facing the prospect of a G5 partner or no access bowl at all
d) The discussion of the playoff payouts were all indicating some kind of past performance - based payout system (like the NCAAT) which implied a considerably lower payment to the ACC (since this was coming right off the end of FSU's Bowden decline and before Clemson's ascension)

It wasn't that hard to think we were looking at a universe where $20M more per year would have been on the table with a move. That's going to be discussed at some level.

Of course now, we see what did happen...
a) ESPN raised the ACC's payment to (roughly estimating based on reports) to $17m for Syracuse/Pitt (wink wink), $18-18.5M with the addition of ND, to around $20M with the GOR. If the ACC is still a tick or two behind the Big 12 and PAC, it's negligible by the time you look at travel
b) The ACC reverted back to 8 conference games
c) The ACC put together the Orange Bowl, which stays in play from an exposure level, while cutting the per-school deficit to the other bowls considerably (while still paying less)
d) The playoffs make all five conferences an equal partner. This is in my mind the most underrated part of the whole situation, because none of the discussion was around this type of disbursement. Given the ACC's BCS performance to this point, this may have been Swofford's greatest work. I've always wondered if the Orange Bowl share with the SEC and B1G was a sweetener to make sure this happened, but we'll never know.
e) The ACC ended up finishing the BCS era and entering the playoff era on a pretty nice run.

If you KNEW all of those things were going to happen, then of course it's obvious that FSU and Clemson were never going to the Big 12, and it was never really close. But there was a short window there where it was all very unclear that it would work out that way, so I'm sure some very serious discussions took place at FSU and Clemson about the future.

There was a better chance of Florida State landing in The Big Ten then there was a chance of them ending up in the big 12.

In the sense that at some point the B1G could have probably made an offer that FSU would have accepted or seriously considered, and the Big 12 really never actually could have, that's probably true.

It depended upon the likes of UNC. The concept was a 20 team Big Ten. UNC, UVA, Duke, GT and FSU were the main points. From what I heard, the sixth wasn't nailed down before the talks went South. They went bad due to someone leaking the talks and thus getting that very negative reaction from the UNC T shirt folks in regards to The Big Ten.

Talks about the Sixth varied from Syracuse to Clemson to even Notre Dame.

So with the big 12 it was simply schools like FSU and Clemson listening to West Virginia officials that were talking for the big 12 while they still legally could. Until the day they officially joined, their talks could not be legally held against the big 12 in terms of tortious interference.

Talks with the Big Ten happened rather organically due to this but fell through.