https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/co...onferences
A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.
Who are these seven schools (five schools knowing the other two are FSU and Clemson) and what are they trying to accomplish?
(05-15-2023 11:33 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/co...onferences
A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.
Who are these seven schools (five schools knowing the other two are FSU and Clemson) and what are they trying to accomplish?
(05-15-2023 11:33 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/co...onferences
A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.
Who are these seven schools (five schools knowing the other two are FSU and Clemson) and what are they trying to accomplish?
(05-15-2023 11:33 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/co...onferences
A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.
Who are these seven schools (five schools knowing the other two are FSU and Clemson) and what are they trying to accomplish?
That there would be seven seems like wishful thinking by FSU and Clemson. I don't know who else moves the needle in football enough to be making any kind of demands. Many stronger schools, such as UNC and U.Va, are highly committed to the continued existence of the ACC. Miami and Va. Tech making demands? Seriously? They're yesterday's news.
As far as I'm concerned, if Clemson and FSU want to leave after the GOR is over, "don't let the screen door hit you where the good Lord split you." I think it's arrogance on their part to think that there's any other conference that even wants them. In any case, God only knows how strong they or any other conference member will be by the end of the GOR. Athletic fortunes change over time.
(05-15-2023 11:33 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.
Known: Clemson, FSU
Very likely: Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Plausible: Louisville, Miami, NC State, Pitt
My read on this with it being 100% self-professed as a revenue problem is that the more football first you are the more likely you are to be in the group of seven. Have a SEC school in state as your rival? That ratchets it up some. Have a B1G school in state as your rival? That ratchets it up some. Are you a relatively new expansion member of the conference? That probably takes it down some because you don't want to rock the boat you just got on. Got a big fat sugar daddy making it rain with a last name of Ruiz? That relieves some pressure too.
(05-15-2023 11:33 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/co...onferences
A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.
Who are these seven schools (five schools knowing the other two are FSU and Clemson) and what are they trying to accomplish?
Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC - high probability
Duke, UVA, VT - likely
Louisville, NC St - possibly but not likely
Edit: apparently I was off with Duke and it was NC St as the 7th team.
(05-15-2023 03:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Brett McMurphy has identified what SI is calling "The Magnificent 7": FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, NC State, UVA, and Virginia Tech.
Reallllllllly. Now that's particularly interesting w/r/t UVA, GT, Pitt, and Louisville.
Interesting that they are “magnificent” instead of misfit or malevolent. Perhaps this is a subtle way of shaping public opinion to achieve a desired goal?
I think it should be emphasized that these 7 are for a tiered payout system, nobody to my knowledge (other than fan boi bloggers) are openly trying to dissolve the ACC. I’m not sure how many votes it would take to vote on a tiered payout system.
If it was me, I’d be aiming for a breakaway division that has the M7(+1) equal sharing the revenue and the others (+2) with their own division. The other 7 can deemphasize football to whatever degree they want to, no longer feeling the pressure to keep up with the football factories.
(05-15-2023 04:03 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that they are “magnificent” instead of misfit or malevolent. Perhaps this is a subtle way of shaping public opinion to achieve a desired goal?
None of this is new. It's actually quite like 1952/53 and 1932/33 before that.
It takes 2/3 to change the distribution rules. ND can't vote on standalone football distribution motions. You need 10 to approve.
Looking over the last decade or so, Syracuse stands out as finishing the season in defacto 13th or 14th place 4 times. Duke has done it three times. It stands to reason that any performance plan hits them. Georgia Tech, and more recently VT would be hit. VT should be able to turn themselves around.
Clemson has half of the first or second place finishes. FSU has 5 of them.
Duke, GT, BC, and Syracuse have no incentives to vote for a football oriented plan. Now you have to keep the vote of Pitt and WF to pass anything. Always back to WF.
I keep hearing that it takes 8 to dissolve the conference, if that’s the case, then the growing threat of dissolvement could sway others to vote for a tiered revenue system before the 8th emerges. I’m thinking a 2 tiered/autonomous division system could have a payout like this:
The Magnificent $55m per
The Others $25m per
The Others could add USF and UConn and possibly get close to $30m per and maybe an extension can be signed by ACC-ESPN for another bump. That would probably be enough to make everybody happy.
(05-15-2023 04:03 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that they are “magnificent” instead of misfit or malevolent. Perhaps this is a subtle way of shaping public opinion to achieve a desired goal?
None of this is new. It's actually quite like 1952/53 and 1932/33 before that.
It takes 2/3 to change the distribution rules. ND can't vote on standalone football distribution motions. You need 10 to approve.
Looking over the last decade or so, Syracuse stands out as finishing the season in defacto 13th or 14th place 4 times. Duke has done it three times. It stands to reason that any performance plan hits them. Georgia Tech, and more recently VT would be hit. VT should be able to turn themselves around.
Clemson has half of the first or second place finishes. FSU has 5 of them.
Duke, GT, BC, and Syracuse have no incentives to vote for a football oriented plan. Now you have to keep the vote of Pitt and WF to pass anything. Always back to WF.
(05-15-2023 04:03 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that they are “magnificent” instead of misfit or malevolent. Perhaps this is a subtle way of shaping public opinion to achieve a desired goal?
None of this is new. It's actually quite like 1952/53 and 1932/33 before that.
It takes 2/3 to change the distribution rules. ND can't vote on standalone football distribution motions. You need 10 to approve.
Looking over the last decade or so, Syracuse stands out as finishing the season in defacto 13th or 14th place 4 times. Duke has done it three times. It stands to reason that any performance plan hits them. Georgia Tech, and more recently VT would be hit. VT should be able to turn themselves around.
Clemson has half of the first or second place finishes. FSU has 5 of them.
Duke, GT, BC, and Syracuse have no incentives to vote for a football oriented plan. Now you have to keep the vote of Pitt and WF to pass anything. Always back to WF.
(05-15-2023 07:10 PM)OrangemanRich Wrote: [ -> ]Could also see a number of these schools go BE, rebooting a football conference w/ schools of best possible fit.
Lol a few embers of BE football begin to glow. Why not, if the southern schools leave why stay in a southern conference? Play in the BE tournament again and grab the northern schools, Memphis and whomever wants to join. BE basketball it still too 3 conference, football would be no worse then 2005.
(05-15-2023 04:03 PM)Garrettabc Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting that they are “magnificent” instead of misfit or malevolent. Perhaps this is a subtle way of shaping public opinion to achieve a desired goal?
It's a movie reference. The Magnificent Seven are a group of gunfighters who work for much less pay than they're worth on the market.
