• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conference Expansion: Stanford, California and SMU Join the ACC

It's not clear from the article/news that came out today, but there may be additional financial concessions this week as compared to last week on the SMU/Stanford/Cal front?
 
On the one hand I don't know that even somewhat significant financial concessions really moves the needle as far as WHY State/FSU/UNC/Clemson voted against this in the past two weeks. On the other I'd have to think if they even meet to vote again it signifies something has changed since otherwise they wouldn't even go through the process right? I mean I guess it could just be additional information gathering/convo as a group but whho knows at this point.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
On the one hand I don't know that even somewhat significant financial concessions really moves the needle as far as WHY State/FSU/UNC/Clemson voted against this in the past two weeks. On the other I'd have to think if they even meet to vote again it signifies something has changed since otherwise they wouldn't even go through the process right? I mean I guess it could just be additional information gathering/convo as a group but whho knows at this point.
Click to expand...
This take makes sense to me. There had to be a conversation with the four no votes to figure out what it would take for each to flip.
 
Would ND-Stanford football still get played every year or go into the rotation of ACC schools playing them?
 
It sounds like may just be for football, men’s bball, and women’s bball. Would they go independent in the rest? I don’t think it’s allowed to be in another conference if that conference sponsors the sport unless you’re independent.
 
Sco Deac said:
Or the crowd is extorting big conce$$ions to flip their votes.
Click to expand...
Just need to flip one and I think Clemson would be most likely if more money available to pay based on results. Noles, Heels, and Pack wont move because they know they will continue to lose and not be able to increase their share, but Clemson is very confident in a pay for performance and could definitely see them flipping if that pot has increased by however many 10s of millions with the 3 new schools.
 
saltydeac said:
Just need to flip one and I think Clemson would be most likely if more money available to pay based on results. Noles, Heels, and Pack wont move because they know they will continue to lose and not be able to increase their share, but Clemson is very confident in a pay for performance and could definitely see them flipping if that pot has increased by however many 10s of millions with the 3 new schools.
Click to expand...
UNC’s performance has overall been fine lately as much as we may not want to admit it. They’ve had a couple double digit seasons.
 
deacdixieboy said:
UNC’s performance has overall been fine lately as much as we may not want to admit it. They’ve had a couple double digit seasons.
Click to expand...
In football??? The UnC in chapel hill?? Might want to check your math as hasnt been recently. Did they have a meh year with near losses vs app, Duke, and wf in a miserable coastal? Yes but nothing to hang your hat on with a miserable D year after year.
 
saltydeac said:
In football??? The UnC in chapel hill?? Might want to check your math as hasnt been recently. Did they have a meh year with near losses vs app, Duke, and wf in a miserable coastal? Yes but nothing to hang your hat on with a miserable D year after year.
Click to expand...
They have been pretty similar to us recently and performance incentives would help us according to Clawson and Currie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top