disclaimer - not saying it will never happen, but there are a lot of factors working against it.
1. specific to B1G, ACC schools in general couldn't care less about playing midwester schools in any sport. minnesota? iowa? it's a big who cares in the ACC. no offense to the B1G fans, btw.
2. in state politics. remember 2003, when the governor of VA told UVa that they were not to vote for any expansion that did not include VT (to protect VT from being left behind)? very similar situations would likely occur in SC, GA, FL and even KY if the SEC invited someone. i know these schools do not want their rival in the same conference, but their rival being left behind in a dead conference is an entirely different issue, IMO.
3. more in state politics. the invited schools would likely face resistance from state politicians over accepting a bid from the SEC or B1G if it meant that their in state brethren would be left behind in a dead conference. also, UNC and NCSU share a board of governors.
4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them. UNC and NCSU share a board of governors. there would also be some compassion for WF. UVa and VT would both need to be in viable conferences to facilitate any moves. the B1G will not take VT (maybe, but they prefer UVa) or NCSU. in theory, the SEC could make it happen if they invited all 4 NC schools and both VA schools IF AND ONLY IF the state politicians in GA, FL, SC and KY did not force their member schools vote in a block against it to protect the other state schools.
5. ACC conference loyalty. similar to #1. UNC, Duke and UVa are dyed in the wool ACC basketball schools. period. i grew up in NC and i can tell you that ACC basketball is every bit as big as SEC football. and it will only get bigger with Syracuse, Pitt, ND and Louisville in the fold. conference loyalty has also surged since the GOR was signed.
6. money. the internet evidently has an endless supply of tv contract "experts" who throw out numbers of how awful the ACC payouts are compared to the other conferences. these contracts are long and incredibly complex, so much so that lawyers are needed to decipher them. i just don't put much weight in the opinions of the internet "experts". the B1G has some gaudy projections, but they may or may not come to fruition. they do make more tv money than any of the other conferences, that's a given. but i have a hard time believing the gap is that wide because...riddle me this - does anyone think that the ACC ADs and presidents are stupid? if the payouts really were that far behind, would they willingly commit financial suicide by signing the GOR? it stands to reason that the money projections must have been competitive. given the ACC's incredibly good tv footprint, the conference has a lot of upside for the long term. as a side note - i believe the ACC network will happen. they will have to reacquire rights (just like the SEC), but the demand for ACC basketball will make it successful and profitable.
(11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]disclaimer - not saying it will never happen, but there are a lot of factors working against it.
1. specific to B1G, ACC schools in general couldn't care less about playing midwester schools in any sport. minnesota? iowa? it's a big who cares in the ACC. no offense to the B1G fans, btw.
2. in state politics. remember 2003, when the governor of VA told UVa that they were not to vote for any expansion that did not include VT (to protect VT from being left behind)? very similar situations would likely occur in SC, GA, FL and even KY if the SEC invited someone. i know these schools do not want their rival in the same conference, but their rival being left behind in a dead conference is an entirely different issue, IMO.
3. more in state politics. the invited schools would likely face resistance from state politicians over accepting a bid from the SEC or B1G if it meant that their in state brethren would be left behind in a dead conference. also, UNC and NCSU share a board of governors.
4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them. UNC and NCSU share a board of governors. there would also be some compassion for WF. UVa and VT would both need to be in viable conferences to facilitate any moves. the B1G will not take VT (maybe, but they prefer UVa) or NCSU. in theory, the SEC could make it happen if they invited all 4 NC schools and both VA schools IF AND ONLY IF the state politicians in GA, FL, SC and KY did not force their member schools vote in a block against it to protect the other state schools.
5. ACC conference loyalty. similar to #1. UNC, Duke and UVa are dyed in the wool ACC basketball schools. period. i grew up in NC and i can tell you that ACC basketball is every bit as big as SEC football. and it will only get bigger with Syracuse, Pitt, ND and Louisville in the fold. conference loyalty has also surged since the GOR was signed.
6. money. the internet evidently has an endless supply of tv contract "experts" who throw out numbers of how awful the ACC payouts are compared to the other conferences. these contracts are long and incredibly complex, so much so that lawyers are needed to decipher them. i just don't put much weight in the opinions of the internet "experts". the B1G has some gaudy projections, but they may or may not come to fruition. they do make more tv money than any of the other conferences, that's a given. but i have a hard time believing the gap is that wide because...riddle me this - does anyone think that the ACC ADs and presidents are stupid? if the payouts really were that far behind, would they willingly commit financial suicide by signing the GOR? it stands to reason that the money projections must have been competitive. given the ACC's incredibly good tv footprint, the conference has a lot of upside for the long term. as a side note - i believe the ACC network will happen. they will have to reacquire rights (just like the SEC), but the demand for ACC basketball will make it successful and profitable.
Ren-who is dumb enough to be spreading such rumors again? Did the Dude get of the psych ward?
he never took his tin foil hat off
this piece is geared towards what happens near the end of the ACC GOR - either they sign an extension or they fall apart. i think they sign the extension.
(11-26-2013 03:35 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]disclaimer - not saying it will never happen, but there are a lot of factors working against it.
1. specific to B1G, ACC schools in general couldn't care less about playing midwester schools in any sport. minnesota? iowa? it's a big who cares in the ACC. no offense to the B1G fans, btw.
2. in state politics. remember 2003, when the governor of VA told UVa that they were not to vote for any expansion that did not include VT (to protect VT from being left behind)? very similar situations would likely occur in SC, GA, FL and even KY if the SEC invited someone. i know these schools do not want their rival in the same conference, but their rival being left behind in a dead conference is an entirely different issue, IMO.
3. more in state politics. the invited schools would likely face resistance from state politicians over accepting a bid from the SEC or B1G if it meant that their in state brethren would be left behind in a dead conference. also, UNC and NCSU share a board of governors.
4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them. UNC and NCSU share a board of governors. there would also be some compassion for WF. UVa and VT would both need to be in viable conferences to facilitate any moves. the B1G will not take VT (maybe, but they prefer UVa) or NCSU. in theory, the SEC could make it happen if they invited all 4 NC schools and both VA schools IF AND ONLY IF the state politicians in GA, FL, SC and KY did not force their member schools vote in a block against it to protect the other state schools.
5. ACC conference loyalty. similar to #1. UNC, Duke and UVa are dyed in the wool ACC basketball schools. period. i grew up in NC and i can tell you that ACC basketball is every bit as big as SEC football. and it will only get bigger with Syracuse, Pitt, ND and Louisville in the fold. conference loyalty has also surged since the GOR was signed.
6. money. the internet evidently has an endless supply of tv contract "experts" who throw out numbers of how awful the ACC payouts are compared to the other conferences. these contracts are long and incredibly complex, so much so that lawyers are needed to decipher them. i just don't put much weight in the opinions of the internet "experts". the B1G has some gaudy projections, but they may or may not come to fruition. they do make more tv money than any of the other conferences, that's a given. but i have a hard time believing the gap is that wide because...riddle me this - does anyone think that the ACC ADs and presidents are stupid? if the payouts really were that far behind, would they willingly commit financial suicide by signing the GOR? it stands to reason that the money projections must have been competitive. given the ACC's incredibly good tv footprint, the conference has a lot of upside for the long term. as a side note - i believe the ACC network will happen. they will have to reacquire rights (just like the SEC), but the demand for ACC basketball will make it successful and profitable.
Ren-who is dumb enough to be spreading such rumors again? Did the Dude get of the psych ward?
(11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
(11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
(11-26-2013 03:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
I don't think the government of NC would require that UNC and NCST be in the same conference. As for VT and UVA, the were in different conferences for decades (and make no mistake, everyone would rather have UVA than VT).
(11-26-2013 03:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
Today, sure. 10-15 years from now, who knows, things change. Colorado said no to the Pac in 1994 because the people then in charge convinced just enough regents to vote no. Those people were long gone by 2010 when CU finally said yes to the Pac. TAMU could not have gotten away with moving to the SEC in 1994, but in 2011 they had an Aggie governor and a legislature that wasn't going to be back in session for more than a year, and the Big 12 didn't fall apart when they left, so their window of opportunity opened.
reread the post. being in the same conference is NOT the issue. leaving fellow state school behind in a dead conference is a HUGE issue in state politics. applies to all 4 NC schools and the 2 VA schools. i would think all 6 would be the best shot for the B1G or SEC if UGa, USC, Florida and UK were not forced to vote against expansion to protect their fellow state schools from being left behind. state politics will make it difficult to kill the ACC in many ways.
(11-26-2013 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
I don't think the government of NC would require that UNC and NCST be in the same conference. As for VT and UVA, the were in different conferences for decades (and make no mistake, everyone would rather have UVA than VT).
reading comprehension???
colorado is totally irrelevant - no other state school to consider.
A&M is different - UT can take care of themselves with respect to conferences. TTech and Baylor simply hid beneath the UT shelter in that case.
(11-26-2013 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
Today, sure. 10-15 years from now, who knows, things change. Colorado said no to the Pac in 1994 because the people then in charge convinced just enough regents to vote no. Those people were long gone by 2010 when CU finally said yes to the Pac. TAMU could not have gotten away with moving to the SEC in 1994, but in 2011 they had an Aggie governor and a legislature that wasn't going to be back in session for more than a year, and the Big 12 didn't fall apart when they left, so their window of opportunity opened.
If any P5 conference is going to get decimated in the future, it will be the Big12. The GOR has a much shorter shelf life, the conference footprint is the worst among all the other conferences for TV exposure and the group appears to have the most fractured association compared to the rest of the P5.
(11-26-2013 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
Today, sure. 10-15 years from now, who knows, things change. Colorado said no to the Pac in 1994 because the people then in charge convinced just enough regents to vote no. Those people were long gone by 2010 when CU finally said yes to the Pac. TAMU could not have gotten away with moving to the SEC in 1994, but in 2011 they had an Aggie governor and a legislature that wasn't going to be back in session for more than a year, and the Big 12 didn't fall apart when they left, so their window of opportunity opened.
I doubt there is another set of schools more politically intertwined and incestuously interbred than VT/UVa/UNC/NCSU/Duke and even WF. The close proximity of the schools lead to the alumni and influential folks all having relatives, spouses, and children at 3, 4 and sometimes 5 of the schools. No one gets to leave without the other's saying it's okay and no, some can't leave and leave the others in a bad situation. Even the state political connections between NC and Va greater than most folks realize.
Don't underestimate the 5 going to bat for WF.
(11-26-2013 04:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
Today, sure. 10-15 years from now, who knows, things change. Colorado said no to the Pac in 1994 because the people then in charge convinced just enough regents to vote no. Those people were long gone by 2010 when CU finally said yes to the Pac. TAMU could not have gotten away with moving to the SEC in 1994, but in 2011 they had an Aggie governor and a legislature that wasn't going to be back in session for more than a year, and the Big 12 didn't fall apart when they left, so their window of opportunity opened.
I doubt there is another set of schools more politically intertwined and incestuously interbred than VT/UVa/UNC/NCSU/Duke and even WF. The close proximity of the schools lead to the alumni and influential folks all having relatives, spouses, and children at 3, 4 and sometimes 5 of the schools. No one gets to leave without the other's saying it's okay and no, some can't leave and leave the others in a bad situation. Even the state political connections between NC and Va greater than most folks realize.
Don't underestimate the 5 going to bat for WF.
To a degree, though. The VA/NC schools can take that stand as long as FSU, Clemson, and GT play along. If we get a few years down the road and the ACCN or other television revenue does not come into line with the Big 10 and SEC, then some unrest will occur. I know, I know... the ACC will be in 50% of the U.S. footprint by 2050 or whatever year, but that does not matter if it is not monetized.
Culturally, the VA/NC schools can always have an ACC that is mid-Atlantic to Northeast. I like the fits of Pitt, Cuse, and BC. Miami would probably be fine, too. Add UConn and maybe a few more in that region, and you have a solid enough P5 conference that is an obvious step below the SEC and Big 10. If that is fine with UNC and UVA, then so be it. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are seemingly fine with that arrangement for the time being. It is the same question for both conferences: Is TT, OSU, and KSU worth it for UT, OU, and KU to hold themselves back? That is what UNC, UVA, and Duke would be doing by holding tight to VT, NCSU, and WF. Whoever blinks first will get the SEC and Big 10 spots to solidify their future, and the other conference will because the obvious #4 among the P4.
(11-26-2013 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them.
That's no problem at all. Any other conference would love to take UNC and Duke as a package.
I think you miss the point - you can't get just UNC/Duke without NC State. You can't get UNC without UVa, and you can't, get VT without UVa. Those five have to be in sync otherwise the politics fail.
I don't think the government of NC would require that UNC and NCST be in the same conference. As for VT and UVA, the were in different conferences for decades (and make no mistake, everyone would rather have UVA than VT).
Wanna bet on that?
(11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]disclaimer - not saying it will never happen, but there are a lot of factors working against it.
1. specific to B1G, ACC schools in general couldn't care less about playing midwester schools in any sport. minnesota? iowa? it's a big who cares in the ACC. no offense to the B1G fans, btw.
2. in state politics. remember 2003, when the governor of VA told UVa that they were not to vote for any expansion that did not include VT (to protect VT from being left behind)? very similar situations would likely occur in SC, GA, FL and even KY if the SEC invited someone. i know these schools do not want their rival in the same conference, but their rival being left behind in a dead conference is an entirely different issue, IMO.
3. more in state politics. the invited schools would likely face resistance from state politicians over accepting a bid from the SEC or B1G if it meant that their in state brethren would be left behind in a dead conference. also, UNC and NCSU share a board of governors.
4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them. UNC and NCSU share a board of governors. there would also be some compassion for WF. UVa and VT would both need to be in viable conferences to facilitate any moves. the B1G will not take VT (maybe, but they prefer UVa) or NCSU. in theory, the SEC could make it happen if they invited all 4 NC schools and both VA schools IF AND ONLY IF the state politicians in GA, FL, SC and KY did not force their member schools vote in a block against it to protect the other state schools.
5. ACC conference loyalty. similar to #1. UNC, Duke and UVa are dyed in the wool ACC basketball schools. period. i grew up in NC and i can tell you that ACC basketball is every bit as big as SEC football. and it will only get bigger with Syracuse, Pitt, ND and Louisville in the fold. conference loyalty has also surged since the GOR was signed.
6. money. the internet evidently has an endless supply of tv contract "experts" who throw out numbers of how awful the ACC payouts are compared to the other conferences. these contracts are long and incredibly complex, so much so that lawyers are needed to decipher them. i just don't put much weight in the opinions of the internet "experts". the B1G has some gaudy projections, but they may or may not come to fruition. they do make more tv money than any of the other conferences, that's a given. but i have a hard time believing the gap is that wide because...riddle me this - does anyone think that the ACC ADs and presidents are stupid? if the payouts really were that far behind, would they willingly commit financial suicide by signing the GOR? it stands to reason that the money projections must have been competitive. given the ACC's incredibly good tv footprint, the conference has a lot of upside for the long term. as a side note - i believe the ACC network will happen. they will have to reacquire rights (just like the SEC), but the demand for ACC basketball will make it successful and profitable.
When you read FSU president Barron's e-mail, he shot off a bunch of stuff without knowledge (although he later did look at things more carefully). Villanova had no clue what was going on when they looked at joining the Big East. So presidents can be uninformed. There's no doubt by anyone but ACC fans that the ACC will be well behind in TV money for the duration of the current contracts. Maryland's president certainly believed so.
But TV money is not the only factor. For one, its only a piece of revenue. If UNC and Duke are no longer in the ACC tourney that will kill their donations. Even Clemson gets donations from UNC fans trying to get tourney tickets. Attendance for a number of the ACC schools might be less with the less familiar Big 10 or Big 12 schools. If they join the SEC East, they might lose more and have smaller football attendance. There's the association factor. The ACC schools would rather be with similar schools in the ACC than the enormous state universities in the Big 10 or the overall less prestigious schools in the SEC or Big 12. And the Big 10 and SEC schools generally have much more resources than the ACC schools. The Big 12 schools on average have more resources. That makes it harder to compete. And finally, other than the SEC, leaving means a lot more travel for the student-athlete with the burden on the student-athlete AND the travel budget.
So the TV money gap has to be big to make it worth it for many of these schools. Obviously for the schools the other conferences had an interest in, it wasn't big enough to make the risk of a move.
UVA had an unstable leadership situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see them move to the Big 10 when the GOR is up if the Big 10 is still looking to expand and not regretting going to 14. But it takes more than just UVA leaving to unravel the conference.
(11-26-2013 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]UVA had an unstable leadership situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see them move to the Big 10 when the GOR is up if the Big 10 is still looking to expand and not regretting going to 14. But it takes more than just UVA leaving to unravel the conference.
I don't see UVA jumping ship. For one, they have a ton of money for a public school so that couldn't be a driving force. Second, it would suck for their secondary sports and that's something UVA takes pride in.
I think that the ACC is probably a bit more stable than the Big12 but both are the ones that are on the dinner table.
(11-26-2013 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]UVA had an unstable leadership situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see them move to the Big 10 when the GOR is up if the Big 10 is still looking to expand and not regretting going to 14. But it takes more than just UVA leaving to unravel the conference.
No a political appointee tried to take out the President and got body slammed by the faculty and other ptb.
Ok, first off. Every Big Ten person realizes East Coast folks are not going to have any appreciation for trips to Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota, or even to Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Purdue. Joining the Big Ten isn't about that. The lure is on the Academic level and the Money.
That being said I always said there would be major cultural complications to luring ACC schools over. Turns out I was absolutely right too. They looked into it but decided the blowback would be too much. The only way it would have happened, in my opinion, is if the Big Ten would have agreed to expanding to 20. The list they would have had to have taken? Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and then one more.
That right there would have provided enough of the status quo culture situation for those schools. They would also have Maryland and Rutgers already so that is a pretty strong presence along the Eastern corridor that matters for college football. Personally I would have chosen Miami for the 20th and final spot just so that the Big Ten footprint goes all the way down Florida instead of just up in the panhandle area. More Big Ten folks live in the southern portion than in the northern portion which is more southern in culture.
It didn't happen though and North Carolina made it pretty clear they were not interested. That put the bull's eye BACK upon the Big 12 where it had been before.
Never said the ACC wouldn't be behind the B1G in tv money. Only questioned how far behind. The ACC presidents certainly were comfortable enough with tv revenue to sign a GoR. Wouldn't that cause a logical spectator to then doubt the assessments of all the Internet "experts"? As for what Maryland believed, Loh is a B1G guy, period. Yes they will make more money. The ACC must have had some sweet revenue projections for everyone to sign the GOR. How else would you explain it????
(11-26-2013 05:45 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (11-26-2013 03:30 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]disclaimer - not saying it will never happen, but there are a lot of factors working against it.
1. specific to B1G, ACC schools in general couldn't care less about playing midwester schools in any sport. minnesota? iowa? it's a big who cares in the ACC. no offense to the B1G fans, btw.
2. in state politics. remember 2003, when the governor of VA told UVa that they were not to vote for any expansion that did not include VT (to protect VT from being left behind)? very similar situations would likely occur in SC, GA, FL and even KY if the SEC invited someone. i know these schools do not want their rival in the same conference, but their rival being left behind in a dead conference is an entirely different issue, IMO.
3. more in state politics. the invited schools would likely face resistance from state politicians over accepting a bid from the SEC or B1G if it meant that their in state brethren would be left behind in a dead conference. also, UNC and NCSU share a board of governors.
4. package deals are too big. UNC would want Duke to come with them. UNC and NCSU share a board of governors. there would also be some compassion for WF. UVa and VT would both need to be in viable conferences to facilitate any moves. the B1G will not take VT (maybe, but they prefer UVa) or NCSU. in theory, the SEC could make it happen if they invited all 4 NC schools and both VA schools IF AND ONLY IF the state politicians in GA, FL, SC and KY did not force their member schools vote in a block against it to protect the other state schools.
5. ACC conference loyalty. similar to #1. UNC, Duke and UVa are dyed in the wool ACC basketball schools. period. i grew up in NC and i can tell you that ACC basketball is every bit as big as SEC football. and it will only get bigger with Syracuse, Pitt, ND and Louisville in the fold. conference loyalty has also surged since the GOR was signed.
6. money. the internet evidently has an endless supply of tv contract "experts" who throw out numbers of how awful the ACC payouts are compared to the other conferences. these contracts are long and incredibly complex, so much so that lawyers are needed to decipher them. i just don't put much weight in the opinions of the internet "experts". the B1G has some gaudy projections, but they may or may not come to fruition. they do make more tv money than any of the other conferences, that's a given. but i have a hard time believing the gap is that wide because...riddle me this - does anyone think that the ACC ADs and presidents are stupid? if the payouts really were that far behind, would they willingly commit financial suicide by signing the GOR? it stands to reason that the money projections must have been competitive. given the ACC's incredibly good tv footprint, the conference has a lot of upside for the long term. as a side note - i believe the ACC network will happen. they will have to reacquire rights (just like the SEC), but the demand for ACC basketball will make it successful and profitable.
When you read FSU president Barron's e-mail, he shot off a bunch of stuff without knowledge (although he later did look at things more carefully). Villanova had no clue what was going on when they looked at joining the Big East. So presidents can be uninformed. There's no doubt by anyone but ACC fans that the ACC will be well behind in TV money for the duration of the current contracts. Maryland's president certainly believed so.
But TV money is not the only factor. For one, its only a piece of revenue. If UNC and Duke are no longer in the ACC tourney that will kill their donations. Even Clemson gets donations from UNC fans trying to get tourney tickets. Attendance for a number of the ACC schools might be less with the less familiar Big 10 or Big 12 schools. If they join the SEC East, they might lose more and have smaller football attendance. There's the association factor. The ACC schools would rather be with similar schools in the ACC than the enormous state universities in the Big 10 or the overall less prestigious schools in the SEC or Big 12. And the Big 10 and SEC schools generally have much more resources than the ACC schools. The Big 12 schools on average have more resources. That makes it harder to compete. And finally, other than the SEC, leaving means a lot more travel for the student-athlete with the burden on the student-athlete AND the travel budget.
So the TV money gap has to be big to make it worth it for many of these schools. Obviously for the schools the other conferences had an interest in, it wasn't big enough to make the risk of a move.