David Hale: ACC exploring WVU, SMU, UO/UW for possible expansion

[HailToPitt725]

“The ACC has explored potential expansion options, according to multiple league administrators, running models on adding a number of potential targets, including West Virginia, SMU, Oregon, and Washington. However, league officials haven’t determined if any additional schools would help bridge the ACC’s financial gap with the SEC and Big Ten.

…But Phillips also touted the ACC’s relatively secure position as the No. 3 league in TV revenue…

As one AD suggested, expansion could be valuable to the league simply as a means of preventing the Big 12 from future growth.”

Full story:

 

[ThePanthers]

Right. Hale reported that a few months ago too. That’s why I mentioned no schools from the pac or big xii brings more money.

I still think adding wvu and maybe okie state or someone would have killed the big xii but that is long gone.

 

[cashisking884]

Imagine being the ACC AD trying to convince Clemson to vote to add SMU because, even if it makes them fall further behind South Carolina, it at least hurt the Big 12.

This has to be BC’s AD or something.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

As one AD suggested, expansion could be valuable to the league simply as a means of preventing the Big 12 from future growth.

An ACC AD? Wtf

 

[HailToPitt725]

Imagine being the ACC AD trying to convince Clemson to vote to add SMU because, even if it makes them fall further behind South Carolina, it at least hurt the Big 12.

This has to be BC’s AD or something.

As one AD suggested, expansion could be valuable to the league simply as a means of preventing the Big 12 from future growth.

An ACC AD? Wtf

Yeah, I could see that argument if it was Oregon, Washington, or one of the other PAC schools. But SMU or WVU? Ehh…

 

[cashisking884]

As one AD suggested, expansion could be valuable to the league simply as a means of preventing the Big 12 from future growth.

An ACC AD? Wtf

It sums up nicely why the conference is in a death spiral with only the existence of a doomsday button possibly keeping it together for a few more years.

 

[cashisking884]

Yeah, I could see that argument if it was Oregon, Washington, or one of the other PAC schools. But SMU or WVU? Ehh…

It doesn’t make any sense then either.

Clemson couldn’t care less what the Big 12 does. It’s interested in what South Carolina and Georgia does.

Keeping Oklahoma State down doesn’t impact that at all.

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

Pilfer the PAC12 and pickoff some teams from the Big12. Solidify yourself as a Top 3 conference.

 

[HailToPitt725]

A conference that can cover all 3 time zones seems like the way to go. Pilfer the PAC12 and pickoff some teams from the Big12. Solidify yourself as a Top 3 conference.

If we’re going to go with a Big 12 school, I’d rather it be TCU. Solid in all athletics and has a nice following in a major U.S. media market. Plus, it makes the ACC look stronger if we poach from the Big 12 than, say, SMU from the American.

 

[ThePanthers]

If we’re going to go with a Big 12 school, I’d rather it be TCU. Solid in all athletics and has a nice following in a major U.S. media market. Plus, it makes the ACC look stronger if we poach from the Big 12 than, say, SMU from the American.

Problem now is the big xii has their own gor signed until 2030 I belive

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

“The ACC has explored potential expansion options, according to multiple league administrators, running models on adding a number of potential targets, including West Virginia, SMU, Oregon, and Washington. However, league officials haven’t determined if any additional schools would help bridge the ACC’s financial gap with the SEC and Big Ten.

…But Phillips also touted the ACC’s relatively secure position as the No. 3 league in TV revenue…

As one AD suggested, expansion could be valuable to the league simply as a means of preventing the Big 12 from future growth.”

Full story:

View embedded media

Doesnt everyone keep telling me college football expansion is no longer about markets? SMU seemed to be a shoe-in for the P12 with George Kliavkoff even making an official visit. Now there are ACC rumors. Yes, they are in Dallas. But they are, at very best, the #3 team in Dallas behind Texas and Oklahoma and at worst the #8 team behind Texas, OU, A&M, OK St, TCU, ND, TT, and Arkansas. That would be an idiotic move.

WVU - as a Pitt fan, no. As an ACC fan who doesnt care about academics - yes. As a snobby ACC fan - no.

 

[cashisking884]

Doesnt everyone keep telling me college football expansion is no longer about markets? SMU seemed to be a shoe-in for the P12 with George Kliavkoff even making an official visit. Now there are ACC rumors. Yes, they are in Dallas. But they are, at very best, the #3 team in Dallas behind Texas and Oklahoma and at worst the #8 team behind Texas, OU, A&M, OK St, TCU, ND, TT, and Arkansas. That would be an idiotic move.

WVU - as a Pitt fan, no. As an ACC fan who doesnt care about academics - yes. As a snobby ACC fan - no.

It’s not really a rumor.

Essentially the ACC ran economic models using every team it possibly could add.

Those models show that not a single team in the country outside of I’m sure ND, add any value. And so that’s the end of expansion for the ACC.

Hale basically reports that same thing every year for the last 3 years.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Pretty good explanation of what *could* happen with FSU, Clemson, etc. around the 33-minute mark. They predict they'll be gone within five years.

https://www.youtube.com/live/PclsFDKbnME?feature=share

 

[HailtoPitt]

Add in Oregon, Washington, TCU and Oklahoma State and it's a kill shot to the Pac 12 and Big 12, and keep ACC firmly number 3.

However, if Oregon and Wash go to the Big 12, then they are number 3.

It's a no brainer and maybe even get additional revenue in TV money, although Disnet/ESPN isn't in a position to dish out the bills.

 

[cashisking884]

Add in Oregon, Washington, TCU and Oklahoma State and it's a kill shot to the Pac 12 and Big 12, and keep ACC firmly number 3.

However, if Oregon and Wash go to the Big 12, then they are number 3.

It's a no brainer and maybe even get additional revenue in TV money, although Disnet/ESPN isn't in a position to dish out the bills.

“It’s a no brainer and maybe even get additional revenue in tv money” is wild. The “maybe” qualifier makes the whole thing a little bit of a “brainer.”

 

[HailToPitt725]

Pretty good explanation of what *could* happen with FSU, Clemson, etc. around the 33-minute mark. They predict they'll be gone within five years.

https://www.youtube.com/live/PclsFDKbnME?feature=share

There was a poster last night (forget who, sorry) that predicted that the current B1G/SEC media deals would be the peak revenue figures for collegiate athletics. If we can keep the conference together between now and 2036, perhaps there’s less incentive for schools to want to leave because the gap will begin shrinking again?

 

[HailtoPitt]

“It’s a no brainer and maybe even get additional revenue in tv money” is wild. The “maybe” qualifier makes the whole thing a little bit of a “brainer.”

No, the maybe qualifier was for the current ESPN deal. The no brainier was adding those four teams. In the very least, the ACC should add Oregon and Washington and tie them into the conference contract so they can't leave withing paying the same fee as everyone else.

 

[cashisking884]

No, the maybe qualifier was for the current ESPN deal. The no brainier was adding those four teams. In the very least, the ACC should add Oregon and Washington and tie them into the conference contract so they can't leave withing paying the same fee as everyone else.

“No brainer”

 

[HailtoPitt]

“No brainer”

Correct. It's a no brainer.

 

[cashisking884]

There was a poster last night (forget who, sorry) that predicted that the current B1G/SEC media deals would be the peak revenue figures for collegiate athletics. If we can keep the conference together between now and 2036, perhaps there’s less incentive for schools to want to leave because the gap will begin shrinking again?

Why would the gap shrink?

There’s no world where the SEC makes less, but the ACC stays the same/increases.

If the college football bubble bursts, every conference is going to get hit hard. If anything the conferences with the big alumni bases will be hit the least.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Why would the gap shrink?

There’s no world where the SEC makes less, but the ACC stays the same/increases.

If the college football bubble bursts, every conference is going to get hit hard. If anything the conferences with the big alumni bases will be hit the least.

I might’ve worded that wrong because I think we’re on the same page re: everyone being hit. In other news, they predicted that there’d be no incentive to leave the ACC because the alternatives wouldn’t be any better. Just some food for thought given the current state of ESPN.

 

[pittchagg]

It’s not really a rumor.

Essentially the ACC ran economic models using every team it possibly could add.

Those models show that not a single team in the country outside of I’m sure ND, add any value. And so that’s the end of expansion for the ACC.

Hale basically reports that same thing every year for the last 3 years.

Sure, but maybe the calculus is different now. Even if adding any of those schools doesn’t increase the existing schools’ share of the pie, even if it’s pro rata there could be motivation from the sense of curbing some of the Big 12’s aggression.

My personal preference would be to haul ass on Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford, but I’m not expecting it to increase the amount of money we’d get. I don’t think it’d make it lower, though.

 

[cashisking884]

I might’ve worded that wrong because I think we’re on the same page re: everyone being hit. In other news, they predicted that there’d be no incentive to leave the ACC because the alternatives wouldn’t be any better. Just some food for thought given the current state of ESPN.

Stop listen to their predictions immediately on anything.

There will not be a world where the ACC and SEC make anything close to each other. Even if the bubble bursts, the gap will remain.

If tomorrow college football tv deals only became worth half of what they are today, the ACC’s will also be halved. It’s not just going to be the SEC. So the disparity will continue with whatever the new gross figure is.

It’s not going to just be an SEC centered burst that evens out the two conferences.

 

[cashisking884]

Sure, but maybe the calculus is different now. Even if adding any of those schools doesn’t increase the existing schools’ share of the pie, even if it’s pro rata there could be motivation from the sense of curbing some of the Big 12’s aggression.

why does Clemson or FSU or others care about any of that?

FSU cares about UF not leaving it behind. The ACC being a solid number 3 does *literally* nothing to help that.

This is where the “it’s a no brainer” stuff is just silly.

FSU’s AD this past spring basically laid it all out for you. If you can’t explain why what you’re advocating for satisfies his concerns, then you’re wasting your time. And his concern wasn’t the ACC losing its place as the number 3 conference.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

SMU? Another small, private, urban school is exactly NOT what the ACC needs.

 

[h2p_5150]

What does this accomplish? Does making yourself the 3rd best in a two conference world matter? If FSU or Clemson leave it won't matter much anyways. No one is going to respect the Big 12 or ACC anymore than the other because they'll basically be the AAC- an afterthought that gets a pat on the head from the media every once in a while

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

What does this accomplish? Does making yourself the 3rd best in a two conference world matter? If FSU or Clemson leave it won't matter much anyways. No one is going to respect the Big 12 or ACC anymore than the other because they'll basically be the AAC- an afterthought that gets a pat on the head from the media every once in a while

If they want to survive beyond the departures of Clemson and FSU with even a modicum of respectability, they need to expand now. 1) Because they need whatever P5 teams they can get asap, while they're still available to be had, and 2) Because they need time to "build the brand" for any G5 additions. Hope they can have a little success and be perceived like a TCU or something, as opposed to adding them after the better teams leave and it looking like a move of complete desperation, like the old Big East. One thing the Big 12 did was add G5 teams that have at least a little bit of clout (minus Houston). There aren't many of those left.

However, yes. None of this will matter if we're talking about overall perception. It would just be another Big 12 once the better teams left.

 

[pittdan77]

There's no way WVU will join the ACC. Their fans have all said so and declared their love for playing in the Big12.

 

[pittdan77]

If they want to survive beyond the departures of Clemson and FSU, they need to expand now. 1) Because they need whatever P5 teams they can get asap, while they're still available to be had, and 2) Because they need time to "build the brand" for any G5 additions. Hope that they can have a little success and be perceived like a TCU or something, as opposed to adding them after the fact (after the better teams leave, that is) and it looking like a move of complete desperation, like the old Big East. One thing the Big 12 did was add G5 teams that have at least a little bit of clout (minus Houston).

However, yes. None of this will matter if we're talking about overall perception. It would just be another Big 12 once the better teams left.

1. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion outside of the interwebs.
2. Why split the revenue up further, which would give schools reasons to leave?
3. Even if a cataclysm were to befall the conference in ten years and four schools leave, it's still a conference anchored on the east coast and the math all changes. Suddenly, some of the schools that don't make sense today could make sense in a decade.
4. The Big12 could devalue themselves into oblivion by the time the ACC GOR expires.
5. The big money conferences could start to push schools out that don't carry enough value for them but maybe they help the value of a smaller conference.

I guess the message is, panic is probably always a mistake. We don't know if the folks at ESPN are telling the ACC they will shift some value to them or what is going on. Again, ESPN has shown they want to keep the ACC in their orbit by creating the conference network and that "terrible" TV deal, while a distant third, isn't too shabby when you start looking around and what is happening to the west. All is fair in love and war but there's no reason to go rooting around on the trash heap.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

1. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion outside of the interwebs.
2. Why split the revenue up further, which would give schools reasons to leave?
3. Even if a cataclysm were to befall the conference in ten years and four schools leave, it's still a conference anchored on the east coast and the math all changes. Suddenly, some of the schools that don't make sense today could make sense in a decade.
4. The Big12 could devalue themselves into oblivion by the time the ACC GOR expires.
5. The big money conferences could start to push schools out that don't carry enough value for them but maybe they help the value of a smaller conference.

I guess the message is, panic is probably always a mistake. We don't know if the folks at ESPN are telling the ACC they will shift some value to them or what is going on. Again, ESPN has shown they want to keep the ACC in their orbit by creating the conference network and that "terrible" TV deal, while a distant third, isn't too shabby when you start looking around and what is happening to the west. All is fair in love and war but there's no reason to go rooting around on the trash heap.

Florida State isn't even messing around anymore. This isn't them jockeying for some type of revenue sharing with an idle bluff; they flat out have legal experts on the case looking for a way out asap, as opposed to just gently exploring their path to a way out as they've done in the past. No reason to worry about keeping them happy any longer. F them if you're the ACC.

So if you run into a situation where FSU, Clemson, Miami, and UNC leave and the BIG and SEC don't want anybody else... you at least want to have a conference in place that's appealing enough for Virginia Tech, NC State, Pitt, etc. to not hop to the Big 12. You can't just "fire add" Liberty, Coastal Carolina, South Florida, Memphis, etc. at that time without it reeking of desperation. At least if you add two now, you give them time to build their brand, recruit at a P5 level, etc. Same concept applies for getting any other P5 team you can (WVU or whomever). At least you have a little appeal now; once those teams leave, you're the present day PAC.

None of this an attractive solution in the short-term, but I'm talking about long-term sustainability.

 

[pafootballguy]

Getting Oregon and especially Washington, who truly believe they will be invited to the Big Ten before the next TV deal, to sign on to the ACC grant of rights may be impossible.

 

[pittchagg]

1. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion outside of the interwebs.
2. Why split the revenue up further, which would give schools reasons to leave?
3. Even if a cataclysm were to befall the conference in ten years and four schools leave, it's still a conference anchored on the east coast and the math all changes. Suddenly, some of the schools that don't make sense today could make sense in a decade.
4. The Big12 could devalue themselves into oblivion by the time the ACC GOR expires.
5. The big money conferences could start to push schools out that don't carry enough value for them but maybe they help the value of a smaller conference.

I guess the message is, panic is probably always a mistake. We don't know if the folks at ESPN are telling the ACC they will shift some value to them or what is going on. Again, ESPN has shown they want to keep the ACC in their orbit by creating the conference network and that "terrible" TV deal, while a distant third, isn't too shabby when you start looking around and what is happening to the west. All is fair in love and war but there's no reason to go rooting around on the trash heap.

Jim Phillips alluded to this last paragraph this week.

“The work that’s been done over this past year, particularly in the last six months, as the Disney leadership and ESPN have been solidified, has been incredibly important to our partnership. We have agreed on a comprehensive, mutually beneficial growth and innovation strategy moving forward. And, second, put in motion several priority initiatives, the combination of which we believe will transform our conference for years to come.”

“The ESPN partnership is really strong, and ESPN and the ACC are completely motivated together to generate additional dollars. Revenue generation continues to be a priority.”

“So you have a lot of mutually beneficial outcomes in this thing, so staying together, working collaboratively, working strategically, and we have some other things that we’re working on I can’t address with this group right now, that are pretty exciting to try to address that revenue gap.”

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

Jim Phillips alluded to this last paragraph this week.

“The work that’s been done over this past year, particularly in the last six months, as the Disney leadership and ESPN have been solidified, has been incredibly important to our partnership. We have agreed on a comprehensive, mutually beneficial growth and innovation strategy moving forward. And, second, put in motion several priority initiatives, the combination of which we believe will transform our conference for years to come.”

“The ESPN partnership is really strong, and ESPN and the ACC are completely motivated together to generate additional dollars. Revenue generation continues to be a priority.”

“So you have a lot of mutually beneficial outcomes in this thing, so staying together, working collaboratively, working strategically, and we have some other things that we’re working on I can’t address with this group right now, that are pretty exciting to try to address that revenue gap.”

They're shooting for the stars instead of looking at reality, and it's going to come back to bite them. If they think they're going to keep Clemson and Florida State happy while their sister schools are making twice as much money, they can keep dreaming. Jim Phillips should be in lifeboat mode right now, but apparently he'd rather scoop water off the Titanic deck with a red solo cup.

 

[pittdan77]

None of this an attractive solution in the short-term, but I'm talking about long-term sustainability.

Right. But long-term sustainability is probably better served by not panicking in this case. The FSU stuff really doesn't mean anything. If the GOR had a hole in it, they could have run right through it already. Also important to remember that ESPN isn't just going to sit there and watch three or four of it's more valuable products waltz on over to FOX. If they do anything, they'll push whatever they want over to the SEC. Maybe pool it all together? Who knows?

I guess what I'm saying is, the ACC is at the mercy of ESPN and will do its bidding. If everything is going to go to hell, they're just going to have to sit by and watch it burn. There's plenty of time to find out.

 

[pittchagg]

They're shooting for the stars instead of looking at reality, and it's going to come back to bite them. If they think they're going to keep Clemson and Florida State happy while their sister schools are making twice as much money, they can keep dreaming. Jim Phillips should be in lifeboat mode right now, but apparently he'd rather scoop water off the Titanic deck with a red solo cup.

What do you mean by this? Expansion is not going to bring in additional revenue per school. It just isn’t. There might be other reasons to expand - namely, to try to keep that revenue per school the same in the event that some of the bigger brands leave - but expansion isn’t going to increase revenue per school.

The only way to increase revenue per school is to…increase overall revenue. The beauty of the ACC’s media deal is that the more money ESPN makes, then the more money the ACC makes. And ESPN makes a lot of money as it is off of the ACC deal, and it seems like both parties think it can make more.

But I don’t really see an Option Three than the two things that the league seems to be considering concurrently.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

What do you mean by this? Expansion is not going to bring in additional revenue per school. It just isn’t. There might be other reasons to expand - namely, to try to keep that revenue per school the same in the event that some of the bigger brands leave - but expansion isn’t going to increase revenue per school.

The only way to increase revenue per school is to…increase overall revenue. The beauty of the ACC’s media deal is that the more money ESPN makes, then the more money the ACC makes. And ESPN makes a lot of money as it is off of the ACC deal, and it seems like both parties think it can make more.

But I don’t really see an Option Three than the two things that the league seems to be considering concurrently.

That's my whole point. Short of the unrealistic addition of Notre Dame, you're not going to increase the overall revenue at this stage. Therefore, Clemson, Florida State, and company are gone no matter what. Unequal revenue distribution (undoubtedly the next step) will still be nothing close to what they know they can get elsewhere. It may be in 2036, but some non-charlatans who are pretty plugged into the situation believe a settlement will be reached within the next five years.

So, at that time, do you want to at least be what the Big 12 is now (by trying to fortify your conference by possibly adding West Virgina, whatever PAC teams you can, etc.), or do you want to be in a worse (because you won't even have brands ad valuable as Oregon and Washington) position than the PAC is in now, where the options are slim and everyone thinks everyone else has one foot out the door (because they do)?

 

[pittchagg]

That's my whole point. Short of the unrealistic addition of Notre Dame, you're not going to increase the overall revenue at this stage. Therefore, Clemson, Florida State, and company are gone no matter what. It may be in 2036, but some non-charlatans who are pretty plugged into the situation believe a settlement will be reached within the next five years.

So, at that time, do you want to at least be what the Big 12 is now (by trying to fortify your conference by possibly adding West Virgina, whatever PAC teams you can, etc.), or do you want to be in a worse (because you won't even have brands ad valuable as Oregon and Washington) position than the PAC is in now, where the options are slim and everyone thinks everyone else has one foot out the door (because they do)?

I understand. I don’t disagree with you. I think work needs to be done concurrently; ESPN has been a great partner, who makes a lot of money off of the ACC and seems to be motivated to do things to increase the pot more.

I also think we’re probably at the point now where they really do need to be thinking about what to do to protect the future, even if it doesn’t add revenue. I’ve been skeptical of the utility of adding west coast schools instead of a scheduling arrangement (I’ve been skeptical of the travel costs being worth it, since I’ve never believed they’d make the shares bigger), but maybe that dynamic changes if you have the opportunity to be opportunistic. I could see a scenario where it could make some sense to fully add some of those schools now, and then if you find yourself in a situation where current members leave, you can explore some G5’s that more fit the footprint (Tulane, Temple, UConn, SMU, etc.)

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I understand. I don’t disagree with you. I think work needs to be done concurrently; ESPN has been a great partner, who makes a lot of money off of the ACC and seems to be motivated to do things to increase the pot more.

I also think we’re probably at the point now where they really do need to be thinking about what to do to protect the future, even if it doesn’t add revenue. I’ve been skeptical of the utility of adding west coast schools instead of a scheduling arrangement (I’ve been skeptical of the travel costs being worth it, since I’ve never believed they’d make the shares bigger), but maybe that dynamic changes if you have the opportunity to be opportunistic. I could see a scenario where it could make some sense to fully add some of those schools now, and then if you find yourself in a situation where current members leave, you can explore some G5’s that more fit the footprint (Tulane, Temple, UConn, SMU, etc.)

Yeah, I mean Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC leaving in 3-5-10 years would be the polar opposite of getting blindsided. If the ACC wants to do nothing up to that point and then put on some public guise that they are shocked this could happen and thought the GOR was impenetrable or shocked that those schools wanted out and didn't want to renew their vows with the conference, they would look like fools. And if they end up doing nothing, I fear we are headed down that path. It's basically what the PAC is(n't) doing now, although I think their options are way more limited than the ACC.

The only part that is a little hazy is if adding teams opens up the GOR and expedites the process of those teams leaving. Then I think you subject yourself to some bad press, even if behind the scenes you were pretty sure those teams were leaving soon anyway.

 

[cashisking884]

If they want to survive beyond the departures of Clemson and FSU with even a modicum of respectability, they need to expand now. 1) Because they need whatever P5 teams they can get asap, while they're still available to be had, and 2) Because they need time to "build the brand" for any G5 additions. Hope they can have a little success and be perceived like a TCU or something, as opposed to adding them after the better teams leave and it looking like a move of complete desperation, like the old Big East. One thing the Big 12 did was add G5 teams that have at least a little bit of clout (minus Houston). There aren't many of those left.

However, yes. None of this will matter if we're talking about overall perception. It would just be another Big 12 once the better teams left.

This is the disconnect with all of these fans and schools. And another poster touched on it with a post when he discussed individual school interests vs conference interest.

There’s 4 types of fans/schools right now in the ACC:

1. Those that truly believe they have a seat waiting for them at one of the Big 2 and just want out of the ACC and aren’t interested in anything else because it’s not good enough. They want the conference to implode if that’s what it takes.

2. Those that think they have a shot at a seat in the Big 2 depending on how expansion goes, but know they at least have a seat locked in at the distant 3rd conference, regardless of what conference that ends up being.

3. Those that don’t think they have a seat at the Big 2, and think they probably do have a seat in the Big 12 if that ends up being the third conference, but are worried it’s not a lock if spots fill up and the ACC collapses. Because the teams in group 2 will get them first. So really want the ACC to win the war for third place.

4. Those that believe they will never get an invite to any other conference. And their existence as a major football entity is solely dependent on their current conference winning the war for the number 3 conference.


Some of this “no brainer” stuff and “make moves” and “get off your ass, ACC” and “take them just to hurt the Big 12,” to the extent they make any sense, only make sense if you’re one of the last 2 groups. Which is why I said the one AD must be like BC’s AD. Or Wake’s.

But it makes no sense for sure if you’re in the first group. And probably makes no sense if you’re in the second group.

Which is why it’s a non-starter and has not happened. And will not happen. The interests of these groups is just not aligned. Which is one of the big problems for the ACC right now. It’s not a “conference” in that sense. It’s a prison guard with its guns (GOR) pointed at rival gangs, and will just open fire the second they start attacking each other.

 

[pittchagg]

Yeah, I mean Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC leaving in 3-5-10 years would be the polar opposite of getting blindsided. If the ACC wants to do nothing up to that point and then put on some public guise that they are shocked this could happen and thought the GOR was impenetrable or shocked that those schools wanted out and didn't want to renew their vows with the conference, they would look like fools. And if they end up doing nothing, I fear we are headed down that path. It's basically what the PAC is(n't) doing now, although I think their options are way more limited than the ACC.

The only part that is a little hazy is if adding teams opens up the GOR and expedites the process of those teams leaving. Then I think you subject yourself to some bad press, even if behind the scenes you were pretty sure those teams were leaving soon anyway.

I think it’s been pretty well-established from the copies of the GOR we do have that adding teams doesn’t open the GOR. New teams need to sign onto the GOR to join the league, but that doesn’t stop binding its current signees.