SEC unanimously accepts A&M; Big XII blocking move? (Updated 8pm)

ACC & Other119

Now that it’s official that A&M will become the 13th member, it’s absolutely certain the SEC will at least add a 14th member, and probably soon (ESPN):

The member presidents of the Southeastern Conference unanimously voted to accept Texas A&M Tuesday night as the league’s 13th member, but the Aggies’ official acceptance has been delayed by the potential threat of legal action.

The SEC’s presidents want assurances that no individual Big 12 school will sue for contractual interference over Texas A&M’s departure. Baylor has not given that assurance to this point, according to sources.

“We were notified yesterday afternoon that at least one Big 12 institution had withdrawn its previous consent and was considering legal action,” University of Florida president and SEC chairman Dr. Bernie Machen said in a statement released Wednesday. “The SEC has stated that to consider an institution for membership, there must be no contractual hindrances to its departure. “

The only holdup to this becoming official is potential legal action by Baylor, which stands to lose the most of all Big XII members should the conference become defunct, as expected (Yahoo!):

A threat of legal action by Baylor has, at least temporarily, held up Texas A&M’s move to the SEC. The SEC’s presidents voted unanimously Tuesday night to extend an invitation to Texas A&M to become the league’s 13th member, but that invitation is contingent upon all of Texas A&M’s Big 12 counterparts waiving their right to a legal challenge.

A source said Baylor had broken ranks with the remaining Big 12 members, which decided last week to waive their right to legally challenge a move by Texas A&M. In a statement, Florida president Bernie Machen, the chair of the SEC’s presidents group, said the SEC would not accept Texas A&M as a member until the potential legal roadblocks were cleared.

The question for State fans: how will this affect the ACC, and thus, State? Sources indicate that Virginia Tech may be the target for the 14th member, so the dominoes may begin to fall very soon now.

There’s been much discussion on SFN about State promoting itself as a target for SEC expansion. LRM says the ACC should raid the Big XII rather than the Big East; maybe the ACC thinks that’s the right idea.

*****

Dan Wetzel asks if bigger is better (Yahoo!):

To call the proposed 16-member leagues “superconferences” is a painful misnomer. Bigger isn’t better for anyone who isn’t getting a bonus based on a television contract. It’s not good for the athletes, the coaches, the alumni or the general fans.

College football’s enduring appeal includes history, tradition and regional rivalries, all of which are currently being spit on by the warring conference commissioners and duped university presidents, a group that likes to refer to itself as the “guardians of the game”

Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops on Tuesday had to shrug at the possibility that the storied Oklahoma-Texas “Red River Shootout” – first played in 1900, usually in Dallas at the Texas State Fair – could cease to exist.

“Sometimes that’s the way it goes,” Stoops said, noting the decision is beyond his control.

Already the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry, which began in 1894, is in jeopardy. Even schools that wind up safe in a big conference will play their long-time rivals less.

And the impact here on other sports – most notably men’s and women’s basketball – could be brutal. Essentially the people who think the BCS is a good idea are threatening the fabric of March Madness.

It may be inevitable, but there are very few positives about any of this. Football is football, so the product will deliver in the end, but the people running the sport are trying their best to maim the appeal.

“I feel like further consolidation and more stability would be a healthy thing for college football,” Pac-12 (or will it be Pac-16?) commissioner Larry Scott said Saturday. “Right now there’s obviously some instability that I don’t think is a particularly healthy thing in certain parts of the country.”

Nice line, but it’s the consolidation that is causing the instability. The Big 12 was fine until Scott came calling in 2010 in an effort to bolster his soon-to-be negotiated media rights deal. While conference membership has occasionally shifted through the years, there was never a free-for-all like this, one that threatened the very collegial purpose of college athletics.

*****

Looks like the Big XII members are going to block the move…at least until Oklahoma decides its future (ESPN):

Texas A&M’s move to the SEC ultimately would happen if Oklahoma stays put in the Big 12, but until that occurs eight of the remaining nine Big 12 schools will not waive their right to pursue litigation against the SEC and A&M, a source with knowledge of the situation told ESPN.com.

During Wednesday’s conference call of the Big 12’s board of directors, the source said it was made clear that the SEC was unwilling to accept the Aggies until the rest of the Big 12 schools waived their right to sue. The confusion arose from a letter that Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe sent to SEC commissioner Mike Slive on Sept. 2, in which Beebe stated that the Big 12’s board of directors — not the individual schools — wouldn’t pursue litigation.

“This is the first time to my knowledge that a conference has been requested to waive any legal claims toward another conference for any damages suffered with a membership change,” Beebe said in a statement Wednesday. He added that the waiver “did not and could not bind the individual member institutions’ governing boards to waive institutional rights.”

Stay tuned…

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

ACC & Other

119 Responses to SEC unanimously accepts A&M; Big XII blocking move? (Updated 8pm)

  1. Pack Mentality 09/07/2011 at 5:21 PM #

    “Simply, we want to put ourselves into the position to compete, and that’s not necessarily guaranteed in a future ACC.”

    If by position to compete, you mean compete and actually win games on Saturdays then I’m in agreement.

    If you mean that in the one in a million chance that we actually are better than the rest of the SEC we could actually win the title so you want to put yourself in the position for THAT, then I do not agree.

  2. packalum44 09/07/2011 at 5:22 PM #

    If we don’t end up in a BCS conference, or whatever the equivalent will be, I just hope the WPC does not expect another $ out of me. I’d also hesitate to donate to academia. The thought of being in a C-USA type league literally makes me sick.

  3. packalum44 09/07/2011 at 5:26 PM #

    From my understanding, as of several weeks ago, our administration was not pursuing the SEC spot.

    So while we may have a fighters chance if we are proactive, we have slim to no chance if we are not. Don’t get your hopes up. After all, we are a “founding” member ACC institution, and we will be a “floundering” member as well.

  4. ClassOf95 09/07/2011 at 6:08 PM #

    Thank GOD you chicken littles aren’t in charge of anything.

  5. Gene 09/07/2011 at 6:28 PM #

    “How has patience worked for us in the past?”

    I don’t know to what you are referring to? We keep coaches around too long? True, but that’s a different animal than jumping conferences.

    “How many successful businesses sit around to see what happens?”

    Despite the money in college athletics, colleges and athletics departments are not for-profit businesses. They are by and large non-profits, whose purpose is different than maximizing shareholder revenue.

    Large non-profits, such as hospitals, exist to provide a service first and look to expand revenues or manage costs, in order to continue providing their services to the public.

    Life’s not that cut and dry, but the gist of it is comparing this to a for-profit business scenario isn’t always going to work.

    Also, when there isn’t a standard format, it is often better to wait and see who the winner is before jumping in, i.e. VHS-BetaMax or Blue-Ray v. HDDVD.

    ******************

    The ACC signed a 12 year deal with ESPN, I think, last year. It’s not as rich as the SEC deal, but the ACC isn’t a pauper just yet.

    We shouldn’t assume the ACC will fall apart.

    I’d rather see how things shake out, then assume our only option option is to beg the SEC for acceptance.

  6. Astral Rain 09/07/2011 at 6:45 PM #

    I think our best shot at a national championship is via the ACC- seriously.

    I do think we should expand a bit more north, with basketball schools that fit our profile- and markets, which also play football)

    We’ll never be the big dog in football as a conference, but we can in basketball, and we can get a spot in the new football order to give our schools a chance. ACC expansion is our best bet.

  7. Wolf74 09/07/2011 at 7:34 PM #

    Time to quickly invite Pitt, Syracuse, WVU and UConn to join the ACC. Then set up the North Division with MD, VT, UVA, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, and UConn. Set up the Southern Division with NCSU, UNCX, Duke, Wake, Clemson, GT, FSU, & UM.

    In football you play everyone in your division with two wildcard games and 4 non conference. Then the Championship Game.

    In basketball, you would play everyone in your division twice and the other division once. Then seed each division and play the tournament with the division winners playing for the championship.

    This would be a great basketball conference and a fun football conference. It should save travel costs. It would be a pretty true Atlantic Coast conference with all teams on the Eastern seaboard. Probably never happen but better than getting left out in the cold.

  8. LRM 09/07/2011 at 7:48 PM #

    I think our best shot at a national championship is via the ACC- seriously.

    You’re assuming the new ACC will a part of the BCS, when it’s quite possible it won’t be. Those of us arguing pro-SEC are only doing it because we don’t expect the ACC to be included when the BCS is renegotiated, which will eliminate any shot we have at a national title (or even a good bowl).

    The SEC, Pac-12, and Big Ten are positioning themselves as the Axis of Power that controls college football, and there’s no guarantee the ACC or Big East will be included.

  9. Wulfpack 09/07/2011 at 8:19 PM #

    Those saying we would not be competitive in the SEC (in football) are completely missing the point. At least we’d be competing!

    We haven’t really even been all that competitive in the ACC anyways. And now, because our conference pretty much stinks, even if we were competitive we wouldn’t have a shot in hell of a national title. So sorry, I just don’t get the argument. You’re either a player in this new environment or your not. I’ve never been one to stand idly by and watch everyone else benefit. So you know exactly where I stand.

  10. ncsu05mit10 09/07/2011 at 8:31 PM #

    Don’t worry about it guys, Debbie Yow already has everything worked out. Lots of smoke and mirrors going on right now, but don’t worry, the decision has already been made. Can’t reveal my source, though I heard the SEC commissioner was sighted on Hillsborough St.

    Sorry, I just wanted to relive last March.

  11. CaptainCraptacular 09/07/2011 at 9:06 PM #

    Time to quickly invite Pitt, Syracuse, WVU and UConn to join the ACC.

    I was screaming this from the trees last month. Except it was Pitt, WVU, ND and pick-em #4. Schools strong with tradition in both football and basketball.

    As described here, if we only have a 20% at best shot at getting into the SEC, then we best also be working on the contingency plan for other, more realistic 80% outcome. If we want that other 80% to be a solution that doesn’t involve us sucking for the next 50 years – then the contingency plan needs to be to make the ACC as attractive as possible right now to the networks, and work a new deal. All in order to withstand any advances by the B1G and SEC or Big East. A 16 team ACC with 30+ million/year payouts to each member would be difficult to raid, even for the SEC and B1G.

    I fully agree that any possible relevancy we hope to have in the brave new world of superconference TV deals is in being in one of those superconferences. If the ACC waits to ‘see what happens’ it is dead meat and its remaining members will for the forseeable future have severely limited athletic budgets or at least budgets that are not competitive with the ‘haves’.

    I disagree that the BCS consortium could somehow limit this to only three 16 or 18 team conferences. If a 4th conference of 16 is attractive enough to the networks with big enough schools that truly deliver big enough markets, that 4th superconference will get a good TV deal and I don’t know if the BCS could or would want to exclude the 4th from getting automatic BCS bids. This doesn’t even consider any threatened involvement by congress on the matter.

    Along these lines – If the ACC expanded to an attractive and strong 16 now that covers most of the eastern seaboard and Notre Dame – Surely it could rival a Pac-16 in terms of network attractiveness and sheer market numbers. If there’s a battle to become the number 3 superconference – Not sure why a reworked ACC would even have to take a backseat to the Pac-16.

    Anyway – I digress. I sure hope the ACC invites are going out in the mail now.

  12. Packfan28 09/07/2011 at 9:24 PM #

    ClassOf95 Says:
    September 7th, 2011 at 6:08 pm Thank GOD you chicken littles aren’t in charge of anything

    ??? You don’t think a major realignment of BCS conferences is underway? And you think NC State and / or the ACC are not going to be impacted?

    I honestly don’t understand your comment. Quite frankly, it makes no sense given what is about to transpire over the next few months.

  13. Astral Rain 09/07/2011 at 9:29 PM #

    I can’t see 5 BCS bowls being filled by just 3 conferences, without a playoff happening, or those conferences withdrawing from the NCAA.

    If the ACC/Big East were excluded , add us to the little guys, and we get a football playoff. The big schools would either have to join in, or leave the NCAA.

    I do think the ACC should judiciously expand , but keeping a regional (east coast) character, and with schools that offer something in basketball. I don’t think forming a frankenstein is going to be good in the long run, it needs to be smart expansion, not just grab the first school avaliable. Do we really need Iowa St?

  14. LRM 09/07/2011 at 9:40 PM #

    Do we really need Iowa St?

    I don’t think *anyone* wants Iowa State.

    As for a playoff, the only reason there isn’t one now is because it wouldn’t be as profitable as the current BCS system. Beyond the fact no one has ever worked out the logistics of a playoff, the mega-millions the BCS offers is all that matters, whether we like it or not.

    I absolutely think five bowls — or six, if the Cotton successfully becomes a BCS bowl — could be filled by three conferences, plus perhaps two at-large teams under similar rules as now. Keep in mind that with 16- or 18-team leagues, you could potentially pair teams from the same conference that haven’t played in years.

  15. AeroWolf 09/07/2011 at 10:00 PM #

    Saw the following opinions on CBS sports:

    http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/31796080

    http://www.cbssports.com/#!/collegefootball/story/15542578/when-am-move-gets-done-wholl-be-the-secs-lucky-14

    The first article lists NC State as a possibility. The second article lists FSU, Clemson, GT, and VT, as well as reasons why they would not be invited.

    Personally, I think the only teams worth mentioning in the ACC that the SEC might go after are Maryland, NC State, and UNC-Duke as a set.

    Miami, FSU, Clemson, and GT are not likely to be invited because they don’t add any new markets, andtheir additional national market presence may be negligible (compared to the current SEC national market), or they had prior chance to join the SEC and refused for whatever reasons (FSU and GT).

    Wake, Duke (on their own), and BC do not add anything to the SEC. The only counterargument may be a Duke-Kentucky basketball series, but I don’t think this will be enough to invite Duke on its own.

    UVA and UNC may be arrogant enough not to accept an invitation to SEC if offered. However, I think UNC, with Duke, would drop the ACC for the either the B1G (most likely due to academic elitism), or the SEC, if offered and they went as a set. This may be possible if the SEC invites another non-ACC school prior to any ACC school invitations.

    VT and UVA are likely to stay in the same conference due to political pressures from the VA state government. This is what happened to the ACC when VT was brought in and the SEC can probably see the history and assume that the same thing would happen if they offered an invitation to either school now. (This thought may also apply to UNC-NC State-(ECU if considered) as well, and work against any school receiving an invitation as well.)

    UNC and NC State probably provide a descent split of the NC TV market, with UNC currently having the greater share due to their success in basketball. Both schools add comparable academics (UNC may be arrogant enough not to lower their standards to accept an SEC invitation, even with their recent exposure as possible frauds). The only problem would be NC government imposing themselves on the schools to keep them together.

    Also the Duke-UNC rivalry may have some value to the SEC if they want to boost their basketball presence (UK, and other SEC schools that value basketball may object adding these additions to the current SEC market).

    NC State may add some value to the SEC as a strong market in NC for football. We may be able to bring our basketball market back from the dead and gain NC market share if we leave the ACC and get out of the Duke-UNC shadow; by-the-way the ACC has done a piss-poor job of marketing the ACC as a conference containing schools not named Duke or UNC. The only question mark in regards to NC market share is how much overlap currently exists in the NC sports market between NC State and South Carolina (if overlap is small NC State is a plus, if not, we are a minus). The biggest value that NC state may possess is that we are a large geographically fitting school with a substantial presence in the NC market. Whether this makes us worthwhile can only be answered by the SEC.

    Maryland is probably best situated ACC school to receive and accept an invitation from the SEC. They give access to the DC market and possibly a national market (basketball and football). They would probably bring revenue due to Under Armour apparel. Add in the fact that they are a descent competitive school in terms of academics, and they make the most sense of any ACC school to join the SEC. No state politics to worry about, descent academics and athletics, no hard substantial rivalry traditions (Duke-Maryland basketball is a good game with tradition but I don’t think anybody is going to miss it if it does not occur every year. Same logic goes to any Maryland rivalry match-ups with VT or UVA). Geography does not matter, if it did, West Virginia, Missouri, and Texas A&M would not even be considered.

    In the end if NC State wants to be invited to the SEC, then we are going to have to start marketing ourselves to that end and challenge for the 14 the spot, other wise we will not be invited.

    Regardless of which future is desired by fans on this site, NC State needs to be more pro-active in marketing ourselves and our our games with schools not named Duke or UNC. This means promoting our existing rivalries with WFU and Clemson, and promoting new rivalries with our conference members. Otherwise, the ACC will likely collapse in a similar manner as the BIG 12 in the near future, with teams being absorbed into other conferences and NC State being left out like Iowa state or Kansas State and relegating ourselves to a Mid-Major or FCS level program.

    Sorry for the size of the post.

  16. HPWolf 09/07/2011 at 11:06 PM #

    First of all screw the SEC. They do not want us so stop begging. There has to be an east coast SUPER conference so we might as well move toward our own super conference similar to what Wolf 74 proposed as well as Captain Crap. I propose we take it a step further and get everyones attention(TV, recruits, etc) and move to establish a 20 team conference with a north and south division and within those an east and west division. 5 teams in each with a south playoff between east and west and then a north playoff between east and west. These two winners would meet for the conference championship. You still play a 12 game regular season and each team plays 3 non conference games to begin the season. Then each team plays the other four teams within your league along with 5 other interconference matchups based on rivalries and desirable tv matchups. you then move toward the south championship and the northern championship. I know this ends up with 2 teams playing a 15 game season but hey, where do you think this money train is headed anyway. This is just a possible framework.

    Northern Division
    East-BC
    Uconn
    Cuse
    Mary
    VT
    West-Pitt
    WVU
    VA
    WF
    Lville or ND

    Southern Division
    East-Miami
    STATE
    Clemson
    GTech
    USF
    West-UNC
    FSU
    Duke
    UCF
    ECU

    We are now without a doubt second to none in basketball and should own the massive east coast tv market for bargaining with ESPN for football.

  17. ChiefJoJo 09/07/2011 at 11:20 PM #

    As much as this is about money, the ACC retains the best academic rankings of the BCS conferences. I think that still matters to the ACC Presidents even though this is driven by money. I think tradition and allegiances will not allow certain teams to leave (big 4?), and even if we don’t have a Texas in our midst, the ACC can add enough schools and revenue to play defense against poaching from the other conferences. Plus, if you think about the geographic footprint of the soon to emerge super conferences, you have the Pac 12/16 covering the west coast, Big 10 the upper midwest, the SEC the deep south, and maybe lower midwest. That leaves the remainder of the southeast and the eastern seaboard as open territory.

    I think the ACC should take that territory and look for schools that fit the ACC’s academic profile, add markets, and revenue. I would consider Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn, all of which bring some or all of those elements to the table: new states/metros in PA, NJ, NY, CT, plus very solid academics (all in USN&WR top 100). That would give the ACC a presence in every coastal state from FL to MA… truly an Atlantic Coast Conference.

  18. drgreenhouse 09/08/2011 at 12:20 AM #

    A couple of my observations based upon what I have seen:

    NC State needs to win something soon. My oh my, the woe is me NC State sucks and always will suck attitude is pathetic. It’s almost a part of our fan base enjoys a constant state of Wolfpack schadenfreude. I’m as frustrated as anyone in the fan base about the lack of conference championships. What more can you people ask for? We’ve replaced a chancellor, an athletic director, a soccer coach and two basketball coaches in very recent history. Everything appears to be going in the right direction. Give them time to do their jobs. If they are unable to do their jobs, we’ll replace them with someone who can.

    I know John Swofford is a Baby Blue through and through, but he was proactive by growing the conference to 12 teams. They might not have been the teams that I would have picked, but he was proactive enough to get a conference championship game. I think a change as commissioner could and should happen soon, but he does seem to have the conference’s best interest at heart. I know that we rightfully feel like that the conference shouldn’t be run by a Tarheel (myself included) but even if all of our conspiracy theories that I would expect to show up on Coast-to-coast radio are true, we have to recognize that even if Swofford is just looking out for UNC, we have to recognize that UNC needs a strong ACC to remain a strong brand.

    You know who else needs a strong ACC – We do! We have been the millstone around the conference’s neck for too long. If we get better, the conference gets better. The four letter network would love to be able to hype all of the Tobacco Road rivalries, but since Jimmy V, we haven’t had anything to hype.

    Going to the SEC is enticing, if we get the offer, we should strongly consider accepting the invitation. In the mean time, just win baby.

  19. Astral Rain 09/08/2011 at 7:23 AM #

    If we wanted to make sure that we get to be the super-conf, would adding a non-BCS school help any? Temple comes to mind- great academics, great location, they have a football team, good basketball tradition.

    Maybe add 3 other schools, and give ND an invite for non-football, with the offer to go to football if you wish when we find another school to go to 18?

    Basketball would be play everyone once for 16 games.

  20. Rick 09/08/2011 at 7:30 AM #

    “Thank GOD you chicken littles aren’t in charge of anything.”

    Are you arguing that the management NCSU has had is good?

    You realize you are talking about a program that has not won anything of significance in 25 years. Who has had the play in game named after its coach. Who has had one winning football season out of the last five.

    So if you want to hang your hat on that, well you are a perfect stepford pack fan. We have been wallowing in that misery for years, why change now, right?

  21. Astral Rain 09/08/2011 at 7:47 AM #

    While let’s face it, State has for the most part sucked the last 20 years, there’s still potential here, and there’s still a fanbase willing to support here- which does count for something.

    We’re not one of the heavyweights, but we’re not Iowa St. or Baylor either.

  22. LRM 09/08/2011 at 7:57 AM #

    I don’t understand why so many folks are caught up on the name as it relates to geography. The Big Ten has 12 teams, the Big XII has 10 (or is it nine?) teams, the Pac-12 has four landlocked states, and the Big East extends as far west as Milwaukee and Chicago (and soon, Fort Worth). Conferences no longer associate with similar geographies, cultures and traditions. The ACC is going to just be a name, like KFC or BP.

    Expansion is wholly about football. If you can improve your basketball profile at the same time, great; but football revenue is *overwhelmingly* greater than basketball. I just don’t see how adding traditional Big East basketball powers enhances your football profile enough to keep a seat at the BCS table. I’d start by inviting Texas & Oklahoma and allow ESPN to negotiate the Longhorns Network into the deal.

  23. Tampa-Pack 09/08/2011 at 8:43 AM #

    Guys we keep rehashing the debate about being able to compete in SEC football. Truth is it doesn’t matter. Its not about football wins and losses – its all and only about $. Not being part of the remaining power conferences (if the ACC can’t find a way to become one, or if State doesn’t find a way into one) means all the money will dry up. And when that happens things will begin to be cut quickly – practice facilities, salaries, probably whole teams. It will be a downward spiral to complete irrelevance across the board. People keep saying see ECU – I think it will be much worse because the division between the haves and have nots will be ever greater. I think it will be more like Div I compared to D-III – who knows, but I don’t want to find out. Worse case is we are bottom feeders in a football power conference, but can build competitive programs in other sports. Without football and TV money there’s no shot. Best case we compete eventually in a football power conference AND build all the other programs up as well. Its really about the existence of all State athletics, not a personal preference of one over the other.

  24. pack1910 09/08/2011 at 8:58 AM #

    ClassOf95’s comment “Thank GOD you chicken littles aren’t in charge of anything.” is the first sensible comment I’ve seen on this.

    I don’t deny that college football conference Armageddon is a possibility, and I don’t dispute that State needs to start laying some groundwork. But as we’re already seeing with this whole Baylor lawsuit mess, none of this is nearly as clear-cut as the doomsayers think. A lot of things have to happen before A&M joining the SEC, or even Oklahoma joining the PAC-1X, trigger a problem for the ACC.

    ‘Tis many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

  25. Rick 09/08/2011 at 9:12 AM #

    “Despite the money in college athletics, colleges and athletics departments are not for-profit businesses. They are by and large non-profits, whose purpose is different than maximizing shareholder revenue.”

    We have been running it as such for a while and where has that gotten us?

    I work for a NFP. When new management started running it like a real business the growth was tremendous. Sure some of the people that had been there and were complacent had to be let go but it needed it.

    Real world business practices would improve NCSU and a real world business would do everything it could to get into the SEC.

1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply