After reading the ACC consitution with the MD lawsuit I thought the section requiring an in-state sponsor (where applicable) was interesting. Basically, they give a school a blackball they can use for any in-state additions (assuming they are the lone ACC school in the state). Where might this clause come to play? The only current FBS schools sharing a state with ACC schools future and current are (I didn't included SEC and B1G schools)
Florida - USF, UCF, FIU, FAU
North Carolina - ECU
Kentucky - WKU
Massachusetts - UMass
New York - Buffalo
Pennsylvania - Temple
If the ACC is deeply raidied and say WF was the only NC school remaining they would have to sponsor ECU for membership. Pitt would have to sponsor Temple. If FSU left Miami would have to sponsor a Florida addition.
(02-03-2013 05:20 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]After reading the ACC consitution with the MD lawsuit I thought the section requiring an in-state sponsor (where applicable) was interesting. Basically, they give a school a blackball they can use for any in-state additions (assuming they are the lone ACC school in the state). Where might this clause come to play? The only current FBS schools sharing a state with ACC schools future and current are (I didn't included SEC and B1G schools)
Florida - USF, UCF, FIU, FAU
North Carolina - ECU
Kentucky - WKU
Massachusetts - UMass
New York - Buffalo
Pennsylvania - Temple
If the ACC is deeply raidied and say WF was the only NC school remaining they would have to sponsor ECU for membership. Pitt would have to sponsor Temple. If FSU left Miami would have to sponsor a Florida addition.
What about Clemson sponsoring South Carolina?
See post. IMO no SEC or B1G school would go to the ACC
(02-03-2013 05:28 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]See post. IMO no SEC or B1G school would go to the ACC
I think the ACC will trade Florida State for Kentucky and South Carolina.
(02-03-2013 05:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:28 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]See post. IMO no SEC or B1G school would go to the ACC
I think the ACC will trade Florida State for Kentucky and South Carolina.
Never going to happen. South Carolina hates the ACC, they'd go back to Independent first.
I'm confused. Are you saying that if, say, Pitt wanted Temple in the ACC, then the ACC would have to accept them? Also Boston College, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, and Wake Forest are all private institutions. I don't think something like this would apply to them.
Welcome to the club, OC...
(02-03-2013 05:54 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm confused. Are you saying that if, say, Pitt wanted Temple in the ACC, then the ACC would have to accept them? Also Boston College, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, and Wake Forest are all private institutions. I don't think something like this would apply to them.
No, I think what he is saying is that Temple could only get in IF Pitt approves them, that is what I think sponsorship means in this.
It means that every other school in the ACC could vote yes on Temple but if Pitt says no then it is no go for Temple.
(02-03-2013 05:54 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm confused. Are you saying that if, say, Pitt wanted Temple in the ACC, then the ACC would have to accept them? Also Boston College, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, and Wake Forest are all private institutions. I don't think something like this would apply to them.
No what the constitution says is if there is an ACC school in a state, any new schools added from that state would have to be sponsored by that ACC school.
(02-03-2013 06:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:54 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm confused. Are you saying that if, say, Pitt wanted Temple in the ACC, then the ACC would have to accept them? Also Boston College, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, and Wake Forest are all private institutions. I don't think something like this would apply to them.
No, I think what he is saying is that Temple could only get in IF Pitt approves them, that is what I think sponsorship means in this.
It means that every other school in the ACC could vote yes on Temple but if Pitt says no then it is no go for Temple.
Exactly. I have heard rumors of blackball clauses in the SEC constitution and now we see a sure nuff blackball clause in the ACC constitution. In my mind it makes the SEC rumor more plausible.
(02-03-2013 05:20 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]After reading the ACC consitution with the MD lawsuit I thought the section requiring an in-state sponsor (where applicable) was interesting. Basically, they give a school a blackball they can use for any in-state additions (assuming they are the lone ACC school in the state). Where might this clause come to play? The only current FBS schools sharing a state with ACC schools future and current are (I didn't included SEC and B1G schools)
Florida - USF, UCF, FIU, FAU
North Carolina - ECU
Kentucky - WKU
Massachusetts - UMass
New York - Buffalo
Pennsylvania - Temple
If the ACC is deeply raidied and say WF was the only NC school remaining they would have to sponsor ECU for membership. Pitt would have to sponsor Temple. If FSU left Miami would have to sponsor a Florida addition.
If Miami does not make it out of the ACC then I don't think they would allow any other Florida schools in. They are not in a very strong position, certainly not strong enough to compete equally with schools like USF and UCF. They actually have active student participation and much larger enrollments and alumnus. With their "equals" having moved on in this scenario, I don't think Miami would want to give UCF or USF, especially USF an opportunity to be on equal ground. Although Miami might end up being talked in to it in negotiations. It is interesting to see this aspect though, I wonder how many other conferences have similar situations.
That matters due to all the talk there is about how Slive would block the Big Ten or the Big 12 with FSU. Well if there is similar rules in the SEC than I wonder how willing Florida would be to play along with that line of thinking.
(02-03-2013 06:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:20 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]After reading the ACC consitution with the MD lawsuit I thought the section requiring an in-state sponsor (where applicable) was interesting. Basically, they give a school a blackball they can use for any in-state additions (assuming they are the lone ACC school in the state). Where might this clause come to play? The only current FBS schools sharing a state with ACC schools future and current are (I didn't included SEC and B1G schools)
Florida - USF, UCF, FIU, FAU
North Carolina - ECU
Kentucky - WKU
Massachusetts - UMass
New York - Buffalo
Pennsylvania - Temple
If the ACC is deeply raidied and say WF was the only NC school remaining they would have to sponsor ECU for membership. Pitt would have to sponsor Temple. If FSU left Miami would have to sponsor a Florida addition.
If Miami does not make it out of the ACC then I don't think they would allow any other Florida schools in. They are not in a very strong position, certainly not strong enough to compete equally with schools like USF and UCF. They actually have active student participation and much larger enrollments and alumnus. With their "equals" having moved on in this scenario, I don't think Miami would want to give UCF or USF, especially USF an opportunity to be on equal ground. Although Miami might end up being talked in to it in negotiations. It is interesting to see this aspect though, I wonder how many other conferences have similar situations.
That matters due to all the talk there is about how Slive would block the Big Ten or the Big 12 with FSU. Well if there is similar rules in the SEC than I wonder how willing Florida would be to play along with that line of thinking.
You know even if Texas ever came around on the SEC, A&M could c*ckblock them with a clause like this. We need a lawsuit in the SEC to get the constitution. Maybe the Appy St guy can FOIA them.
Anyway, I think Temple, UMass, ECU, USF and/or UCF could actually be impacted by this clause. Might move Memphis, UH and SMU up the ACC entry list.
(02-03-2013 05:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:28 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]See post. IMO no SEC or B1G school would go to the ACC
I think the ACC will trade Florida State for Kentucky and South Carolina.
Never going to happen. South Carolina hates the ACC, they'd go back t Independent first.
Yep. South Carolina......"been there.....done that."
As for Wake......I don't know how they'd feel about accepting/sponsoring ECU into the ACC.
(02-03-2013 07:00 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 06:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:20 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]After reading the ACC consitution with the MD lawsuit I thought the section requiring an in-state sponsor (where applicable) was interesting. Basically, they give a school a blackball they can use for any in-state additions (assuming they are the lone ACC school in the state). Where might this clause come to play? The only current FBS schools sharing a state with ACC schools future and current are (I didn't included SEC and B1G schools)
Florida - USF, UCF, FIU, FAU
North Carolina - ECU
Kentucky - WKU
Massachusetts - UMass
New York - Buffalo
Pennsylvania - Temple
If the ACC is deeply raidied and say WF was the only NC school remaining they would have to sponsor ECU for membership. Pitt would have to sponsor Temple. If FSU left Miami would have to sponsor a Florida addition.
If Miami does not make it out of the ACC then I don't think they would allow any other Florida schools in. They are not in a very strong position, certainly not strong enough to compete equally with schools like USF and UCF. They actually have active student participation and much larger enrollments and alumnus. With their "equals" having moved on in this scenario, I don't think Miami would want to give UCF or USF, especially USF an opportunity to be on equal ground. Although Miami might end up being talked in to it in negotiations. It is interesting to see this aspect though, I wonder how many other conferences have similar situations.
That matters due to all the talk there is about how Slive would block the Big Ten or the Big 12 with FSU. Well if there is similar rules in the SEC than I wonder how willing Florida would be to play along with that line of thinking.
You know even if Texas ever came around on the SEC, A&M could c*ckblock them with a clause like this. We need a lawsuit in the SEC to get the constitution. Maybe the Appy St guy can FOIA them.
Anyway, I think Temple, UMass, ECU, USF and/or UCF could actually be impacted by this clause. Might move Memphis, UH and SMU up the ACC entry list.
I hadnt even thought of that. This line of thinking is very new. I mean, we have always known there was some form of agreement between certain SEC schools to vote together to not allow in schools from their states. That would lead me to believe such a rule is not in place but all of that could just be rumor to cover the fact that an individual school could indeed block any of it's fellow in state schools to get into the SEC. For legal reasons they might not want it known.
If it is a common thing in these conferences then yes there is no way the Aggies ever let the Longhorns into the SEC if Texas actually ever wanted it...which I highly doubt.
(02-03-2013 07:07 PM)ECUPirated Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:28 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]See post. IMO no SEC or B1G school would go to the ACC
I think the ACC will trade Florida State for Kentucky and South Carolina.
Never going to happen. South Carolina hates the ACC, they'd go back t Independent first.
Yep. South Carolina......"been there.....done that."
As for Wake......I don't know how they'd feel about accepting/sponsoring ECU into the ACC.
OK, but don't be surprised.
The Gentleman's Agreement is not a formal rule of the SEC but (as its name suggests) an informal agreement among the schools who are the sole, public school representative of their state, that any new addition to the conference from a state that already has a present member requires that member's approval.
So, if UF WANTS FSU in the SEC, no big deal, admission process continues normally
If UF does NOT want FSU then all the agreement schools veto their application
...and you're damn right we will veto UT or Baylor or anyone else from Texas (with the POSSIBLE exception of SMU, were on pretty good terms with them right now)
(02-03-2013 05:24 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2013 05:20 PM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ]After reading the ACC consitution with the MD lawsuit I thought the section requiring an in-state sponsor (where applicable) was interesting. Basically, they give a school a blackball they can use for any in-state additions (assuming they are the lone ACC school in the state). Where might this clause come to play? The only current FBS schools sharing a state with ACC schools future and current are (I didn't included SEC and B1G schools)
Florida - USF, UCF, FIU, FAU
North Carolina - ECU
Kentucky - WKU
Massachusetts - UMass
New York - Buffalo
Pennsylvania - Temple
If the ACC is deeply raidied and say WF was the only NC school remaining they would have to sponsor ECU for membership. Pitt would have to sponsor Temple. If FSU left Miami would have to sponsor a Florida addition.
What about Clemson sponsoring South Carolina?
South Carolina isn't coming back. Ever.
(02-03-2013 07:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]The Gentleman's Agreement is not a formal rule of the SEC but (as its name suggests) an informal agreement among the schools who are the sole, public school representative of their state, that any new addition to the conference from a state that already has a present member requires that member's approval.
So, if UF WANTS FSU in the SEC, no big deal, admission process continues normally
If UF does NOT want FSU then all the agreement schools veto their application
...and you're damn right we will veto UT or Baylor or anyone else from Texas (with the POSSIBLE exception of SMU, were on pretty good terms with them right now)
Right but that is not the same as a sponsorship rule such as what is being discussed. A sponsorship rule requires the approval of the in state school or else a vote by the others might as well not even happen. That is different from such a gentleman's agreement as you describe.
I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.
It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.
(02-03-2013 09:08 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure this means that much. BC basically stopped UConn, and they're not in the same state. So if UVA had a real problem with ECU, the other ACC schools would probably back UVA.
It's not just in-state schools that have this "veto" power; all of them essentially have veto power.
I think if there was an unwritten veto power, then Duke would have never let Mami, BC and VPI in the conference.