Little Danny;1087755 wrote:I don't think the two are necessarily a package deal, but my understanding is that as two schools who are more of a football culture, they perceive the rest of the league being more tilted to schools with basketball programs (particularly UNC and Duke). Another issue I have read about lately is the ACC is making peanuts in tv dollars as opposed to Florida (SEC) and South Carolina (SEC). This is even after you factor in the re-calculated amount when Pitt and Syracuse join. Clemson and FSU want to catch up to their in-state schools and there are reports of the B12 getting a mega-deal if and when they go back to a scenario where they have a championship game (12 or 14).
In a nutshell. This.
Yes, Clemson is a founding member of the ACC but has been at odds with it for many reasons over the years. One is the basketball culture and the fact that it is run by UNC grads and tobacco road.
Two, when we got NCAA sanctions in the late 80s under Danny Ford, the ACC added a year to the probation, the only time a conference has EVER added more sanctions than the NCAA. This pissed Clemson off, and they haven't forgotten about it. In fact, the extra sanctions were spearheaded by John Swafford, who was at UNC as AD at the time and is now the Commissioner of the ACC.
Three, The baseball tournament (Clemson LOVES its baseball) used to be held in Greenville, SC every other year alternating with NC cities. But Swafford came up with some bullshit excuse about the confederate flag and moved the game out of SC until they remove it from state property (like Clemson has any say over that issue). All this does is hurt a state that could use the extra dollars (the tourney always sold out in SC). Myrtle Beach needs the money badly (there was talk of having the tournament there every few years), but they won't move the tournament back to the state.
The addition of Pitt and Syracuse also just solidify the league as being motivated by basketball rather than football. This is where FSU and Clemson see eye to eye. FSU and Clemson (as well as VT) are the only real football-crazy schools in the ACC. FSU and Clemson both have 80K plus stadiums and don't want the league to become basketball based. This is one of the main reasons they want to stick together. There has been a nice little rivalry between the two over the last 10-15 (5-5 in the last 10 I believe) and neither school wants it to end.
TV money from the new SEC contracts are staggering, and staying in the ACC may hurt both schools when compared to in-state rivals (South Carolina and Florida). Since the SEC started raking in the dough, South Carolina has beaten Clemson three years in a row for the first time in almost 50 years. Clemson has historically dominated this rivalry (winning 3 straight over 10 times) and has has a 30 game lead in the series. If the Big 12 wants to restructure and get a massive TV deal reminiscent of the SEC deal, Clemson and FSU would be fools not to jump on board.
I think if it were to happen, there would need to be a few more teams in the east for an east division. Maybe Clemson, FSU, Louisville (or cinci), WVU, VT and TCU in the division would be good as a start. These match ups would all be better than the current slate of opponents in the ACC and would help tickets and national TV exposure.
A big argument against the move is that both schools are recruiting very well despite a weak ACC. Clemson and FSU have pulled in top 10-15 classes the last few years.
I think this all comes down to money really.
