(04-19-2024 11:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 09:20 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  Except the UNC BOG has the final say on any realignment moves:

UNC System BOG officially gives itself power in athletic conference realignment

The University of North Carolina System - Leadership and Governance

Cal system needed a majority vote to approve UCLA as well to be fair.

Yep, and I've said plenty of times the UC system is the closest example. They were bamboozled and the UNC system will not be, hence the legislation.

(04-19-2024 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 08:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  LOL no this is in your head. We’ve laid it out pretty clearly.

Carolina doesn’t have the football crazy fanbase of Texas or Oklahoma. So in order to get the sheer volume of football fans in NC to even approach Texas/Oklahoma, the SEC would need both Carolina and State. Carolina + State approaches Texas rather than Carolina = Texas, and State = Texas Tech. Make sense?

Also, nobody here is clamoring to get into your foster home. Also in your head.

The unique aspect of NC is the UNC system which includes both Carolina and State. OU and OK State are governed by different entities, same with Texas and Texas Tech. Carolina and State are overseen by the Board of Governors, which is heavily influenced by both schools. It’s essentially a stalemate.

To be sure, my understanding of the UNC Board of Governors is that it’s more akin to a state-level board of higher education while each individual school still has its own Board of Trustees that has their own autonomy. This is actually a very common public university governance structure - it isn’t anywhere near as unique as a lot of North Carolina-based posters argue. The fact that it’s called the “UNC Board of Governors” as opposed to the “North Carolina Board of Higher Education” (which is the naming convention that most other states use) might be coloring that perception.

A true single governance example would be the University of California Board of Regents. Of course, UCLA didn’t even bother to tell their own board that they were leaving for the Big Ten.

In conference realignment, history says that schools do what they want to do and then ask for forgiveness later. I’m not saying that you’ll end up being wrong, but we have heard the political angle in much larger conference moves involving much larger brand names and markets (e.g. Texas and California) and, ultimately, the money rules. That’s where the skepticism will always be, particularly when the “add-on” school of NC State wouldn’t ever be able to get into the Big Ten or SEC on its own in terms of its valuation.

Except the UNC BOG has the final say on any realignment moves:

UNC System BOG officially gives itself power in athletic conference realignment

The University of North Carolina System - Leadership and Governance

Yes - that’s understood.

At the end of the day, even if a board has the authority to block a realignment move, will they actually do so when the annual financial delta to the school moving is worth tens of millions of dollars? History says no. This is further exacerbated that the Big Ten and SEC have more leverage now than ever before - they both want UNC, but they don’t *need* UNC to where they need to add NC State on top of them. They can instead take other ACC schools, which would devalue both UNC and NC State at the same time (just as UCLA correctly argued to the UC Board of Regents that their choice wasn’t coming back to the Pac-12 minus USC only, but rather coming back to the Pac-12 where the Big Ten would take Oregon and/or Washington instead and financially punish *both* UCLA and Cal).

Now, I think a “Calimony”-type payment from UNC to NC State could be imposed if UNC left the ACC. That wouldn’t surprise me. I just don’t see either the Big Ten or SEC taking NC State at all and I don’t think UNC is going to stand for making so much less in conference revenue (even if they don’t engage in the same legal challenges that we are seeing from FSU and Clemson). My argument has long been that I think UNC and the other most valuable ACC brands will *eventually* leave. However, my pushback against a lot of people here is about the *timing* because I think the legal and financial leverage is going to be with the ACC on the GOR until circa 2030 and there’s little to no rational incentive for the ACC to settle it quickly and/or cheaply.

I've never said it couldn't or wouldn't happen. There is a lot more going on in our situation where many in power don't want to leave and much prefer staying while closing the revenue gap. How that happens, I'm not so sure. I do know competing in the SEC or Big Ten would cost A LOT more money than what Carolina spends now and that doesn't really make sense considering there just isn't the appetite for football vs non-regional rivals. Carolina couldn't even sell out the ND game and the last thing we football fans want is our stadium routinely being overrun with Georgia or Ohio State fans. No offense.

There is lot that needs to play out before Carolina has to make a decision but time tends to stand still on NCAABBS so we'll have this conversation countless times the rest of the decade.

Once FSU and Clemson leave, whether now or in 2036, how much of a bonus do you think it would take for the ACC to keep UNC happy? I was thinking $15-20m the other day, assuming that it would be on top of FSU/Clemson exit fee windfalls. Is that enough?

FYI, I think that the ACC should and will offer up a huge chunk to UNC to keep you guys happy.

Just my two cents, but Clemson doesn't have any leverage. The Big Ten doesn't want them. Florida State on the other hand can actually use their leverage to get the maximum benefit possible from the two superpowers.

For example, I could see Clemson accepting a lesser-than-equal share to join the SEC. I could never see Florida State agreeing to a such a thing.

(04-19-2024 02:18 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  Just my two cents, but Clemson doesn't have any leverage. The Big Ten doesn't want them. Florida State on the other hand can actually use their leverage to get the maximum benefit possible from the two superpowers.

For example, I could see Clemson accepting a lesser-than-equal share to join the SEC. I could never see Florida State agreeing to a such a thing.

They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:18 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  Just my two cents, but Clemson doesn't have any leverage. The Big Ten doesn't want them. Florida State on the other hand can actually use their leverage to get the maximum benefit possible from the two superpowers.

For example, I could see Clemson accepting a lesser-than-equal share to join the SEC. I could never see Florida State agreeing to a such a thing.

They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

(04-19-2024 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:18 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  Just my two cents, but Clemson doesn't have any leverage. The Big Ten doesn't want them. Florida State on the other hand can actually use their leverage to get the maximum benefit possible from the two superpowers.

For example, I could see Clemson accepting a lesser-than-equal share to join the SEC. I could never see Florida State agreeing to a such a thing.

They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:39 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:18 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  Just my two cents, but Clemson doesn't have any leverage. The Big Ten doesn't want them. Florida State on the other hand can actually use their leverage to get the maximum benefit possible from the two superpowers.

For example, I could see Clemson accepting a lesser-than-equal share to join the SEC. I could never see Florida State agreeing to a such a thing.

They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half. By the way, Clemson with their ACC revenue total would be 7th in the current Big 10. Add the media revenue difference of the Big 10 to that total (28 million) and they would be 6th behind Iowa. So they would add to the Big 10 as well and more than they could add to the SEC. The SEC didn't make as much as the Big 10 in media revenue but still outearned the Big 10 in total revenue by 6 million per school on average.

(04-19-2024 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:39 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:18 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  Just my two cents, but Clemson doesn't have any leverage. The Big Ten doesn't want them. Florida State on the other hand can actually use their leverage to get the maximum benefit possible from the two superpowers.

For example, I could see Clemson accepting a lesser-than-equal share to join the SEC. I could never see Florida State agreeing to a such a thing.

They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half.

I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not like Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should the Longhorns ever want to use it.

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:58 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:39 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half.

I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should it ever want to use it.

You should stop talking while you are still behind. Texas doesn't tell the SEC anything other than "we want to come on board with Oklahoma". Since they were both massive adds not a problem. Texas has one vote out of 16. Oklahoma might vote with them. Maybe even Missouri. 3 votes out 16 don't get anything stopped and sure don't get anything done.

If Virginia Tech is to be considered it will be because their stadium seats 66,000 a good deal better than Virginia's stadium and they carry more viewership in a state of 9 million than does UVa.

The schools aren't calling the shots. The conferences express preferences. But the networks decide who makes them money and who doesn't.

And Texas will have leverage, but in recruiting. They have a boat load of money to spend. But in conference matters they have the same leverage as A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt and that would be 1 vote.

(04-19-2024 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:58 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:39 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half.

I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should it ever want to use it.

You should stop talking while you are still behind. Texas doesn't tell the SEC anything other than "we want to come on board with Oklahoma". Since they were both massive adds not a problem. Texas has one vote out of 16. Oklahoma might vote with them. Maybe even Missouri. 3 votes out 16 don't get anything stopped and sure don't get anything done.

If Virginia Tech is to be considered it will be because their stadium seats 66,000 a good deal better than Virginia's stadium and they carry more viewership in a state of 9 million than does UVa.

The schools aren't calling the shots. The conferences express preferences. But the networks decide who makes them money and who doesn't.

And Texas will have leverage, but in recruiting. They have a boat load of money to spend. But in conference matters they have the same leverage as A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt and that would be 1 vote.

Texas has options. Not many other SEC schools do. Texas can leave at the end of a deal and it has an equal or better or comparable place to go. My guess is no other SEC school has that besides Florida.

(04-19-2024 11:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-18-2024 10:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 09:35 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do not think the SEC will ever try to bring in anyone a network would blanche at paying for. The SEC is in a position of strength, so it will not be inviting a pile of middling-value schools, only a few premium brands.

Yeah, not sure why any gentlemen's agreement between ESPN and the SEC would need to exist in order to discourage Greg Sankey from adding a UAB or a North Texas for the pro rata media share. Guarantee that Sankey cares even more about the makeup of his conference than does his current media partner that may well be an ex-partner in a decade (or even sooner if ESPN were to get bought out before 2034).

Not sure, either, why some folks keep downplaying the likes of NC State and VA Tech getting SEC invites. Both are certainly on the same tier as P2 additions as were Rutgers and Maryland when they got invited to the B1G. Nothing wrong with any of those four schools being on the top rung of conferences

My well known antipathy towards NC State's prospective SEC invite is informed by the following:

1. The B1G will not take them b/c they're inferior in every way to Stanford (who they just passed on). The SEC wouldn't simultaneously block the B1G with an NC St move like we would with UNC or potentially FSU and Clemson
2. The SEC gave OU the stiffarm for over a decade, despite the reasonable expectation that both A&M and OU in the SEC would also convince Texas to make the move. Why? Because we didn't want Ok St. Even more importantly, they wouldn't consider Texas Tech even if that was what it took to lock down Texas.
3. Ok St has significantly better TV numbers than NC St does over a long period of time. NC St has better geography. Neither is Elite in a money sport today, but both are pretty good. They can be viewed as being of roughly comparable value overall.
4. It's reasonable to assume that our standards for admission today are higher than they were a few short years ago.
5. Keeping the above in mind, even if NC St was considered acceptable in 2011 (I agree that they probably were back then), the Mendoza line has moved up, a lot, whereas NC St is still the same ole' pretty good but not great school.
6. Rutgers and Maryland were Flagship AAU and brought in 2 new states at a time when that was REALLY important to the SEC and B1G. NC St is not Flagship, not AAU, and if they're UNC's baggage then they don't bring a new state or region, either. They'd literally be the definition of dead weight, comparable to Mississippi St or Purdue but without the 100 years of history in the Conference. Would the B1G add Mississippi St today? Would the SEC add Purdue?
7. NC State's best bet might be if both FSU and UNC jump to the B1G, and the SEC is looking for a partner for Clemson. I, for one, would think that Miami or VT would be better choices, but a reasonable person could argue that NC St would be the better move for us in this specific (and quite unlikely) scenario, and I would support it if that was the consensus.

JR has some understandable discussion points on the topic of NC St, but most of the North Carolina posters give some version of "but our state is different/better and the SEC has to bend to our will on NC St or they'll never get UNC". Texas didn't get to bring Texas Tech. OU didn't get to bring Ok St. I just can't fathom a "small expansion" scenario today of 2-4 teams in which either the SEC or B1G would want to bring in programs at the Texas Tech/OK St level, and despite what the North Carolina posters believe, the SEC is not so anxious to add UNC that we'll allow them to dictate terms to us.

Point of clarity on #2. The SEC didn't stiff arm Oklahoma. It stiff armed David Boren who was on a personal crusade to keep Oklahoma State connected to Oklahoma. I think Oklahoma State named a building after Boren's wife and she was one their alums or something to that effect. Boren was the only one insisting on OSU's inclusion. Lucky for Missouri that David Boren had that bent.

I didn't know that about Boren's wife, but I did know that he was adamant that OSU must not be left behind in any OU realignment move. I just assumed it was b/c he was protecting his legacy as a former Governor, aka taking care of the entire state instead of just OU, but his wife's connection to OSU makes it all make much more sense.

(04-19-2024 12:03 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 10:05 AM)UofLCard94 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 07:22 AM)LaBradfordsTWill Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 07:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 06:26 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I like GTech but the B1G won't add them. Would probably be Duke or Miami in that scenario... last one being ND. I think Duke is ultimately going to get the shaft and they'll end up in the Big East or Big 12.


Another fallacy. Clemson and FSU would be scooped up in nanoseconds by the B1G. NCSU and VaTech are closer to AAU status than the latter pair. This is just not a sticking point any longer, especially after schools like Oregon got in (AAU in name only).

NCSU and VaTech make logical sense... of course, they'd come in only at partial shares though, and probably not until after 2030 when they can lock in the price longer term, assuming this all doesn't happen by '25-'26 season, which it still could.

That's fine about GT.
They actually fit better with Miami. Wake Forest, Duke, SMU Syracuse, Pitt, Cal, Stanford and Boston College in forming their own conference along with Notre Dame's association.

Then the B1G stops at 22, still adding VT, UVa, Carolina and NC State.
It cuts off any advancement by the SEC up the east coast beyond South Carolina.


BTW, the only ACC school that I could ever see fitting into or joining the Big 12 would be Louisville.

Actually, the Big XII is a better fit for Louisville than the ACC in my opinion. Add Louisville and Memphis to that conference and we Cards fans would be very content.

Come on now not all Cards Fans would be very content. The only reason that we would want to be i the B12 is total ACC collapse. We know that B10 is not option due to AAU and academics. SEC is iffy (UK hate) second school in small state but the hate and rivalry might get us last seat on the boat. So we are resigned that we would be going to the B12.

Outside Cincy and Memphis (who we have not played in over a decade now), who in B12 is must play for UofL? Maybe Houston & WVU? That's it.

Who in ACC? Pitt/Cuse/FSU/Clemson/GT/VT/Miami/NCSU. Even if FSU and Clemson leave and that is it.... the ACC is still better for UofL for this Cards Fan.

Yup and in addition the ACC is still tighter geographically despite CalFord...and your BoT would rather be associated with better academic schools

The biggest reason for Louisville to prefer the ACC is that they're already there now. Sure, the academics are better, but the geography is very close for them and the Big 12 has a better mid-long term prognosis than the ACC. They'd be fine in either Conference. Not saying that others wouldn't also be fine in either, but Louisville in particular is an excellent fit for both the ACC and Big 12.

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 03:13 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:58 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:39 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half.

I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should it ever want to use it.

You should stop talking while you are still behind. Texas doesn't tell the SEC anything other than "we want to come on board with Oklahoma". Since they were both massive adds not a problem. Texas has one vote out of 16. Oklahoma might vote with them. Maybe even Missouri. 3 votes out 16 don't get anything stopped and sure don't get anything done.

If Virginia Tech is to be considered it will be because their stadium seats 66,000 a good deal better than Virginia's stadium and they carry more viewership in a state of 9 million than does UVa.

The schools aren't calling the shots. The conferences express preferences. But the networks decide who makes them money and who doesn't.

And Texas will have leverage, but in recruiting. They have a boat load of money to spend. But in conference matters they have the same leverage as A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt and that would be 1 vote.

Texas has options. Not many other SEC schools do. Texas can leave at the end of a deal and it has an equal or better or comparable place to go. My guess is no other SEC school has that besides Florida.

The Big 10 isn't an option, and the PAC 12 is gone. Texas likes to play their games as close to home as possible for their fans, and they want to play familiar rivals. That would be Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and a long time ago LSU. They will schedule some non-conferences games with Texas schools. The SW Conference suited them. The Big 12 was a compromise in that there were 4 Texas schools in it. The SEC is next compromise on the Texas business model. They aren't joining the Big 10, not rejoining the Big 12, and now there is no way they take a pay cut to join the ACC. They're fine and with their sports mix where diamond sports are a priority they'll be happy.

The Chinese have a 3 part curse you need to be familiar with:
May you live in interesting times. (Peaceful times are routine and hardly interesting.)
May every desire of your heart come true. (Most people desire things which aren't good for them.)
And may those in authority take notice of you. (In China you don't want to stand out to the party, or the Emperor in the old days.) Abrasive and wrong is a bad combination.

(04-19-2024 02:18 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  Just my two cents, but Clemson doesn't have any leverage. The Big Ten doesn't want them. Florida State on the other hand can actually use their leverage to get the maximum benefit possible from the two superpowers.

For example, I could see Clemson accepting a lesser-than-equal share to join the SEC. I could never see Florida State agreeing to a such a thing.

Clemson and FSU are quite similar to Washington-Oregon. If a Conference will take one, they'd take the other.

The SEC still doesn't offer reduced shares to new members, that's a B1G thing. How's that worked out for your recent additions? If I was a school and I was considering a P2 move, I know which Conference I'd want, just based upon how they each treat new members.

(04-19-2024 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 03:13 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:58 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half.

I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should it ever want to use it.

You should stop talking while you are still behind. Texas doesn't tell the SEC anything other than "we want to come on board with Oklahoma". Since they were both massive adds not a problem. Texas has one vote out of 16. Oklahoma might vote with them. Maybe even Missouri. 3 votes out 16 don't get anything stopped and sure don't get anything done.

If Virginia Tech is to be considered it will be because their stadium seats 66,000 a good deal better than Virginia's stadium and they carry more viewership in a state of 9 million than does UVa.

The schools aren't calling the shots. The conferences express preferences. But the networks decide who makes them money and who doesn't.

And Texas will have leverage, but in recruiting. They have a boat load of money to spend. But in conference matters they have the same leverage as A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt and that would be 1 vote.

Texas has options. Not many other SEC schools do. Texas can leave at the end of a deal and it has an equal or better or comparable place to go. My guess is no other SEC school has that besides Florida.

The Big 10 isn't an option, and the PAC 12 is gone. Texas likes to play their games as close to home as possible for their fans, and they want to play familiar rivals. That would be Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and a long time ago LSU. They will schedule some non-conferences games with Texas schools. The SW Conference suited them. The Big 12 was a compromise in that there were 4 Texas schools in it. The SEC is next compromise on the Texas business model. They aren't joining the Big 10, not rejoining the Big 12, and now there is no way they take a pay cut to join the ACC. They're fine and with their sports mix where diamond sports are a priority they'll be happy.

The Chinese have a 3 part curse you need to be familiar with:
May you live in interesting times. (Peaceful times are routine and hardly interesting.)
May every desire of your heart come true. (Most people desire things which aren't good for them.)
And may those in authority take notice of you. (In China you don't want to stand out to the party, or the Emperor in the old days.) Abrasive and wrong is a bad combination.

My fortune cookie reading says Texas and Mississippi State are on different planets and the SEC will soon learn what it is like to exist in a conference with Texas. Also, I remember Texas sending out feelers to the Pac-12 (RIP) and B1G. I guess Texas' love of playing in their backyard is not a constant over time.

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 03:32 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 03:13 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:58 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should it ever want to use it.

You should stop talking while you are still behind. Texas doesn't tell the SEC anything other than "we want to come on board with Oklahoma". Since they were both massive adds not a problem. Texas has one vote out of 16. Oklahoma might vote with them. Maybe even Missouri. 3 votes out 16 don't get anything stopped and sure don't get anything done.

If Virginia Tech is to be considered it will be because their stadium seats 66,000 a good deal better than Virginia's stadium and they carry more viewership in a state of 9 million than does UVa.

The schools aren't calling the shots. The conferences express preferences. But the networks decide who makes them money and who doesn't.

And Texas will have leverage, but in recruiting. They have a boat load of money to spend. But in conference matters they have the same leverage as A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt and that would be 1 vote.

Texas has options. Not many other SEC schools do. Texas can leave at the end of a deal and it has an equal or better or comparable place to go. My guess is no other SEC school has that besides Florida.

The Big 10 isn't an option, and the PAC 12 is gone. Texas likes to play their games as close to home as possible for their fans, and they want to play familiar rivals. That would be Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and a long time ago LSU. They will schedule some non-conferences games with Texas schools. The SW Conference suited them. The Big 12 was a compromise in that there were 4 Texas schools in it. The SEC is next compromise on the Texas business model. They aren't joining the Big 10, not rejoining the Big 12, and now there is no way they take a pay cut to join the ACC. They're fine and with their sports mix where diamond sports are a priority they'll be happy.

The Chinese have a 3 part curse you need to be familiar with:
May you live in interesting times. (Peaceful times are routine and hardly interesting.)
May every desire of your heart come true. (Most people desire things which aren't good for them.)
And may those in authority take notice of you. (In China you don't want to stand out to the party, or the Emperor in the old days.) Abrasive and wrong is a bad combination.

My fortune cookie reading says Texas and Mississippi State are on different planets and the SEC will soon learn what it is like to exist in a conference with Texas. Also, I remember Texas sending out feelers to the Pac-12 (RIP) and B1G. I guess Texas' love of playing in their backyard is not a constant over time.

Practice something besides internet disinformation and smack, and do it on another board, and learn to take a hint while you're at it. When you are ready to contribute instead of annoy PM me. Somehow, I bet your fortune cookie didn't help you with seeing what today had in store.

(04-19-2024 02:58 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:39 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half.

I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not like Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should the Longhorns ever want to use it.

They’re not 100 year decisions. Once the paradigm changes again—or football falls out of favor with the pillow fight future—it’ll reset itself

(04-19-2024 02:58 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 07:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 06:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  I will change the thread title to include Clemson, as many of the same issues are in dispute in the South Carolina action.

Coming soon: Seminoles & Tigers & Tar Heels & Wolfpack & Cavaliers & Hokies & Hurricanes versus ACC

Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:39 PM)Sparty Baby 84 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2024 09:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  Actually the Tigers did the ACC a favor by filing their suit in Pickens County. Since we now have suits filed in multiple states, it would be logical to move everything to Federal Court. Since Pickens County and Mecklenburg County are located in the 4th Federal district, that would be the logical move.
Getting the venue away from the obvious kangaroo court in Florida would be a big plus and allow the suits to be heard based on the Law as opposed to a desired pre-determined outcome.

Once those suits are settled in Federal Court it won't be necessary for additional suits to be filed.

(04-19-2024 02:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  They certainly might, if they didn't have any other offers.

The SEC offers no partial shares and expects no school to take one. The SEC is share and share alike from day 1. No some schools have had portions of loans the conference made to them withheld from annual distribution, but that doesn't lessen their full share, it's just that when they are paid the payback amount agreed upon is withheld. The SEC has no exit fees. If you still owe on a loan you have to settle that before you get your final share.

You don't speak for the SEC. And the past is irrelevant. Every business deal is different. Tell me what leverage Clemson has. The answer is none (or Big XII).

The SEC speaks for itself. It says no partial shares. It would require a vote of membership to change the policy. They aren't changing it. if a school doesn't bring full value they aren't getting invited. Clemson has the leverage of a large travel crowd, 80,000 butts in their seats win or lose, and being solid in all 3 major men's sports, and they multiply the value of SEC games with their viewership. They pay their way in. They just don't add a lot. Clemson is 28th national in revenue generation. That makes them 11th in position in the SEC without adding the SEC difference in media revenue. Add that and they are top half.

I stand corrected (to a degree). However, the SEC could change. It's not like Clemson has anywhere better to go and that's typically part of the fundamental "trust" factor in how most relationships are built. Also, Virginia Tech is Clemson without the natties in a better market and nobody cares about them. What's Clemson without Dabo? Virginia Tech level? Can Dabo live forever?

These are hundred year decisions. And to be clear, I don't think the SEC or Big Ten would short a member forever. But I do think at least the Big Ten has and would on a temporary basis. And the SEC might short NC State if I dunno TEXAS said so. Because Texas has plenty of leverage should the Longhorns ever want to use it.

Sure the SEC could change, but we're not going to. That isn't how things are done down here. A school that only warrants a partial share just won't get invited to the SEC in the first place, I don't see any scenario where we'd take in a new member but embarrass them with a partial share for the first time ever.

(04-19-2024 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 08:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 10:26 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  JR has some understandable discussion points on the topic of NC St, but most of the North Carolina posters give some version of "but our state is different/better and the SEC has to bend to our will on NC St or they'll never get UNC". Texas didn't get to bring Texas Tech. OU didn't get to bring Ok St. I just can't fathom a "small expansion" scenario today of 2-4 teams in which either the SEC or B1G would want to bring in programs at the Texas Tech/OK St level, and despite what the North Carolina posters believe, the SEC is not so anxious to add UNC that we'll allow them to dictate terms to us.

LOL no this is in your head. We’ve laid it out pretty clearly.

Carolina doesn’t have the football crazy fanbase of Texas or Oklahoma. So in order to get the sheer volume of football fans in NC to even approach Texas/Oklahoma, the SEC would need both Carolina and State. Carolina + State approaches Texas rather than Carolina = Texas, and State = Texas Tech. Make sense?

Also, nobody here is clamoring to get into your foster home. Also in your head.

The unique aspect of NC is the UNC system which includes both Carolina and State. OU and OK State are governed by different entities, same with Texas and Texas Tech. Carolina and State are overseen by the Board of Governors, which is heavily influenced by both schools. It’s essentially a stalemate.

You do realize that your argument doesn't support UNC's candidacy, but rather is an argument against it?

Ultimately, the State schools in both North Carolina and Texas are controlled by their legislatures. A&M was blocked from joining the SEC in 1990 by our Legislature. A&M and Texas were forced to bring along little brothers Baylor and Texas Tech upon the formation of the Big 12 by our legislature. Texas pushed so hard for so long to include Texas Tech in any moves due to pressure from our legislature. Or do you think that it's just altruism, and the Admins at Texas don't care about money or success, but rather about taking care of Texas Tech? The only difference in NC is that there's one more entity in between the legislature and the BoT of the individual schools.

A&M and Texas jointly administer a PUF that is today valued at over $30b. Our legislature threatened to drastically reduce our shares in this fund over the years in order to coerce us to bring along various little brothers during our conference maneuvers. Our situations are, in the end, quite comparable. The only difference is that, according to you, UNC has so little football enthusiasm that they can't carry their own weight. Hmmmmm, I wonder if Sankey and Petitti know this?

As a diehard Carolina football fan since childhood, I have a realistic view of the program. The program can make the playoffs in the ACC, no doubt in my mind. But throw a schedule of Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, or Penn State, Ohio State, and Wisconsin? Yeah, I’m going to have my doubts. What Mizzou did this past season was admirable beating superior programs Tennessee and Florida while losing to LSU and Georgia. I mean that season would be #goals in the SEC. But let’s be honest, that was a special season and they needed Florida to be down.

I’m comparing Carolina to Mizzou because I feel like they’d be the closest football peer program. Kentucky too. But consider UK and Mizzou still pack in their stadium with 61k and 62k fans while ours seats 50k and we can’t sell out a Notre Dame game. It’s just reality.

Legislation is not comparable state to state. Sorry, but you sound like the federal government lol Moving on.

The bottom line is the ACC is the best fit for Carolina. How much does it cost to compete in the B18/SEC vs the ACC? This is the first thing I’d need to know.

I do agree the SEC needs to think long term with their pro rata additions. That said, I don’t think there are any schools outside of Carolina, State, Clemson, and FSU and perhaps Kansas that have any sort of realistic chance. You keep talking about Virginia Tech, but that ain’t happening. They are not going anywhere and haven’t even flinched on doing what UVa tells them to do.


* re: Miami: the SEC doesn’t do pro stadiums, you should know this

(04-19-2024 02:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 11:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 09:20 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  Except the UNC BOG has the final say on any realignment moves:

UNC System BOG officially gives itself power in athletic conference realignment

The University of North Carolina System - Leadership and Governance

Cal system needed a majority vote to approve UCLA as well to be fair.

Yep, and I've said plenty of times the UC system is the closest example. They were bamboozled and the UNC system will not be, hence the legislation.

(04-19-2024 09:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-19-2024 08:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be sure, my understanding of the UNC Board of Governors is that it’s more akin to a state-level board of higher education while each individual school still has its own Board of Trustees that has their own autonomy. This is actually a very common public university governance structure - it isn’t anywhere near as unique as a lot of North Carolina-based posters argue. The fact that it’s called the “UNC Board of Governors” as opposed to the “North Carolina Board of Higher Education” (which is the naming convention that most other states use) might be coloring that perception.

A true single governance example would be the University of California Board of Regents. Of course, UCLA didn’t even bother to tell their own board that they were leaving for the Big Ten.

In conference realignment, history says that schools do what they want to do and then ask for forgiveness later. I’m not saying that you’ll end up being wrong, but we have heard the political angle in much larger conference moves involving much larger brand names and markets (e.g. Texas and California) and, ultimately, the money rules. That’s where the skepticism will always be, particularly when the “add-on” school of NC State wouldn’t ever be able to get into the Big Ten or SEC on its own in terms of its valuation.

Except the UNC BOG has the final say on any realignment moves:

UNC System BOG officially gives itself power in athletic conference realignment

The University of North Carolina System - Leadership and Governance

Yes - that’s understood.

At the end of the day, even if a board has the authority to block a realignment move, will they actually do so when the annual financial delta to the school moving is worth tens of millions of dollars? History says no. This is further exacerbated that the Big Ten and SEC have more leverage now than ever before - they both want UNC, but they don’t *need* UNC to where they need to add NC State on top of them. They can instead take other ACC schools, which would devalue both UNC and NC State at the same time (just as UCLA correctly argued to the UC Board of Regents that their choice wasn’t coming back to the Pac-12 minus USC only, but rather coming back to the Pac-12 where the Big Ten would take Oregon and/or Washington instead and financially punish *both* UCLA and Cal).

Now, I think a “Calimony”-type payment from UNC to NC State could be imposed if UNC left the ACC. That wouldn’t surprise me. I just don’t see either the Big Ten or SEC taking NC State at all and I don’t think UNC is going to stand for making so much less in conference revenue (even if they don’t engage in the same legal challenges that we are seeing from FSU and Clemson). My argument has long been that I think UNC and the other most valuable ACC brands will *eventually* leave. However, my pushback against a lot of people here is about the *timing* because I think the legal and financial leverage is going to be with the ACC on the GOR until circa 2030 and there’s little to no rational incentive for the ACC to settle it quickly and/or cheaply.

I've never said it couldn't or wouldn't happen. There is a lot more going on in our situation where many in power don't want to leave and much prefer staying while closing the revenue gap. How that happens, I'm not so sure. I do know competing in the SEC or Big Ten would cost A LOT more money than what Carolina spends now and that doesn't really make sense considering there just isn't the appetite for football vs non-regional rivals. Carolina couldn't even sell out the ND game and the last thing we football fans want is our stadium routinely being overrun with Georgia or Ohio State fans. No offense.

There is lot that needs to play out before Carolina has to make a decision but time tends to stand still on NCAABBS so we'll have this conversation countless times the rest of the decade.

Once FSU and Clemson leave, whether now or in 2036, how much of a bonus do you think it would take for the ACC to keep UNC happy? I was thinking $15-20m the other day, assuming that it would be on top of FSU/Clemson exit fee windfalls. Is that enough?

FYI, I think that the ACC should and will offer up a huge chunk to UNC to keep you guys happy.

The ACC, like the SEC has gotten along very well with equal revenue sharing since it's founding in 1953.
Only recently has the conference offered incentives and reduced shares (Cal. Stanford, SMU).
When Florida State leaves and if Clemson leaves, I would think that the ACC would go back to something akin to equal revenue sharing whether it's soon or by 2036.

Live stream and updates: Leon County FL Hearing
Florida State versus ACC

WCTV Livestream:
https://www.wctv.tv/livestream/

Alison Posey (WCTV):
https://twitter.com/AlisonPosey14

Matt Baker (TBTimes):
https://twitter.com/MBakerTBTimes
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/04/...t-clemson/

Liam Rooney and Peter Holland Jr (Tallahassee Democrat)
https://usatoday.com/story/sports/colleg...373194007/

Doug Rohan, Atlanta attorney:
https://twitter.com/RohanLawPC