[Hieronymus]

The downside of that is without the ballast provided by Florida State the ACC becomes next on the menu for super conference poaching, so we’d be contemplating joining a dying conference.

Some argue that the most lucrative ACC programs oppose our joining precisely because we help stabilize the conference and they’d rather get on with SEC/Big 10 consolidation.

(Post in response to Jskass in case post in the interim made that unclear)

As I understand it, UVA and UNC see themselves as the "leaders" of the ACC. UNC certainly has that reputation. Adding Stanford and Cal might be viewed as adding competition for the "elder statesmen" roles. IMO there are plenty of "good" reasons to oppose adding two teams from the opposite coast. However, given the decision making process in college football these days, I doubt anybody in the ACC is really looking at those reasons. From a "what's in it for me" point of view, if the deal brings no additional money to each school, it is unclear what the advantages are to the ACC. IMO there is no way one could argue it makes the conference "stronger", as they are taking "leftovers" from the PAC-12. Given the travel issues, why do it? If FSU and Clemson do intend to leave, it would make sense iff the money stayed the same (or increased) for all remaining schools. Of course, what ND thinks may count a bit.

I suspect this is right as well as the comments that UNC and UVA expect to jump to the Big 10 eventually. But man this takes things even beyond USC sabotage level because it’s all in the open. Here we are claiming that 2 schools who consider themselves to be leaders of the ACC aren’t willing to take a small hit on $ to help ensure long term stability because they expect to leave the ACC eventually. I don’t think anyone would consider that leadership, especially other ACC schools. Not that the others can do much about in terms of expansion. But just wow.

[Hieronymus]

The downside of that is without the ballast provided by Florida State the ACC becomes next on the menu for super conference poaching, so we’d be contemplating joining a dying conference.

Some argue that the most lucrative ACC programs oppose our joining precisely because we help stabilize the conference and they’d rather get on with SEC/Big 10 consolidation.

(Post in response to Jskass in case post in the interim made that unclear)

As I understand it, UVA and UNC see themselves as the "leaders" of the ACC. UNC certainly has that reputation. Adding Stanford and Cal might be viewed as adding competition for the "elder statesmen" roles. IMO there are plenty of "good" reasons to oppose adding two teams from the opposite coast. However, given the decision making process in college football these days, I doubt anybody in the ACC is really looking at those reasons. From a "what's in it for me" point of view, if the deal brings no additional money to each school, it is unclear what the advantages are to the ACC. IMO there is no way one could argue it makes the conference "stronger", as they are taking "leftovers" from the PAC-12. Given the travel issues, why do it? If FSU and Clemson do intend to leave, it would make sense iff the money stayed the same (or increased) for all remaining schools. Of course, what ND thinks may count a bit.

I suspect this is right as well as the comments that UNC and UVA expect to jump to the Big 10 eventually. But man this takes things even beyond USC sabotage level because it’s all in the open. Here we are claiming that 2 schools who consider themselves to be leaders of the ACC aren’t willing to take a small hit on $ to help ensure long term stability because they expect to leave the ACC eventually. I don’t think anyone would consider that leadership, especially other ACC schools. Not that the others can do much about in terms of expansion. But just wow.