Dear Andy: Which ACC schools do Big Ten/SEC covet? Who’s to blame for grant of rights? Is anyone getting booted?

The realignment tilt-a-whirl is spinning, and boy do you have questions. But before we dig into the meatier ones, let me answer the two most common questions. (I got several hundred this week, and it feels as if half were some variation on one of the same two topics.)

1. No, I don’t think there is any chance college football ends up using the concepts of promotion and relegation the way English soccer does. Had that concept existed in American sports before — as it did in English soccer — then it would have been grandfathered into what is happening now. But it didn’t. So while I think it would be highly entertaining, I doubt the schools in the strongest leagues are about to put their power or their money at risk by creating any system that relegates the programs at the bottom of the standings.

2. I haven’t heard anyone in a decision-making position even hint at booting the schools that consistently underperform in football in the Big Ten or SEC. Everyone seems to want to know when Illinois and Vanderbilt are being tossed out of their respective leagues. The answer? Not anytime soon and probably never.

Now on to the harder questions …

Great and informative reporting on the grant of rights contracts. Assuming said contract could be broken by an ACC school, would the SEC and/or the Big Ten be inclined to accept them, and if so, who? For example, Clemson may fit the SEC culturally/geographically, but would adding them make any financial sense? Which, if any, ACC school would be attractive and why? When do you hit the point of diminishing returns?

— Jay

As Jay pointed out, whether anyone currently in the ACC could break the grant of rights arrangement and leave is a massive “if.” But if they could, there absolutely would be interest in multiple schools from both leagues in the new Power 2.

This is yet another reason why the ACC continues to scramble to find new revenue streams as it tries to overcome a media rights deal that runs until 2036 and will soon pay less than half what the new Big Ten and SEC deals pay per school. The discussions with the Pac-12 of a loose agreement that could create some new revenue streams are a start, but the ACC doesn’t have any options that would come near closing that gap.

That’s the fear among the leaders at ACC schools that do want to compete for championships and have invested as such. There is a schism in the league, and it will make for some unpleasant relationships if everyone is stuck together for 14 more years.

So let’s say that some highly paid attorney at one of the schools found a magic bullet that would disable the grant of rights. Who would be in demand?

We’ll start with the schools that could draw interest from the Big Ten and SEC.

Notre Dame isn’t a full ACC member, but it has most of its sports parked there and is contracted to play five football games a year against ACC opponents. Obviously, the Fighting Irish are the biggest prize in realignment. If they ever want to scrap their cherished football independence, they have a standing invitation from every league in America.

What about the full members? Let’s start with North Carolina, which is a big, recognizable athletics brand at an academically prestigious university. Former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany played point guard for the Tar Heels, and it’s tough to imagine his old league wouldn’t push hard for his alma mater. But the SEC also would covet the Tar Heels. As colleague Matt Fortuna astutely pointed out, North Carolina is the largest state by population that doesn’t contain a Big Ten or SEC team, and the state continues to grow fast. That’s a big potential audience down the road.

What, you ask, is the next-largest state that doesn’t contain a Big Ten or SEC school? It’s Virginia. And the University of Virginia would be of interest to both leagues. This one is more of a prestige play than an audience play, though. Virginia isn’t as big a TV draw as in-state rival Virginia Tech, but like most of the Big Ten schools and recent SEC addition Texas, it’s an academically prestigious flagship school in a large state.

Miami, meanwhile, is another academically strong school with a bankable football brand. It isn’t a member of the Association of American Universities — which includes 15 of the 16 current and future Big Ten schools, and the 16th (Nebraska) was a member when it joined — but neither is Notre Dame. Miami probably rates high enough on that side of the equation to satisfy Big Ten presidents, though. For the SEC, Miami would have to show it can bring in big TV numbers. Historically, the Hurricanes have done that when they’re good. When they aren’t, the ratings are pretty average.

Meanwhile, there are other schools that may be fits for one but not the other.

The Big Ten put out feelers to Georgia Tech before the expansion that wound up with the addition of Nebraska, and it’s conceivable the league might want to plant a flag in Atlanta. The Yellow Jackets left the SEC in 1964, so it’s safe to say they aren’t getting another shot there.

Clemson, meanwhile, is an SEC school in every way except conference affiliation. The Tigers probably belong in the league more than any school that isn’t already in it. They are the ACC’s biggest TV draw at the moment, and they are one of the few programs that could enter the SEC and be immediately competitive for football championships.

Florida State turned down the SEC in the 1990s when that league added Arkansas and South Carolina. The Seminoles chose the ACC and dominated the league for their first decade in it. But much of the fan base and some influential alums have been frustrated with the ACC since even before the league forged the grant of rights in 2013. (Then-Florida State president Eric Barron was not one of those people; he helped rally support for the grant of rights.) If the leadership in Tallahassee could build a time machine, it would go back to 1990 and tell then-SEC commissioner Roy Kramer yes. Failing that, they’d certainly want to join the SEC now. And while Florida would balk at conferring SEC cachet upon its rival, there was a group of schools that wanted the Seminoles instead of Missouri in 2012. Florida State needs to get off the mat in football, but it has shown it can be an incredible TV draw and championship contender when things are going well.

I mentioned Virginia Tech earlier, and while smarter people than me keep telling me the SEC would want Virginia, the Hokies feel like a better cultural fit. Blacksburg feels like an SEC town, and when Enter Sandman is blasting, Lane Stadium feels like an SEC environment.

When I mentioned North Carolina above, I didn’t mention NC State. I’ve long thought the Wolfpack would thrive in the SEC. I’ve just always been told that most in the league would rather have the Tar Heels. But conference realignment also is a political game. What if North Carolina were blocked from leaving NC State behind and joining the Big Ten? Would the SEC be willing to offer membership to both? That would lock up a state that, as we noted above, is big now and only getting bigger by the day.

You’ve probably noticed at this point that I haven’t mentioned Duke. I think if this had happened 10 years ago that I’d have Duke as a lock to get offered by the Big Ten and a possibility to be offered by the SEC. Now? I’m not sure. Duke football probably isn’t ever going to be a powerhouse, and basketball doesn’t drive these decisions. Mike Krzyzewski was such a powerful brand unto himself that he probably would have lifted the Blue Devils into contention for either league, but with Coach K retired, it’s difficult to figure out where Duke fits. Academically, the Big Ten schools likely would love the company. But do they want to take on another Rutgers in football?

Will John Swofford prove to be the man that killed the ACC? Early on, ACC czar Swofford was lauded for his ruthlessness in raiding the Big East to save the ACC. Plus, he helped bring Notre Dame closer to the ACC. However, under his watch, the ACC Network was continually delayed. He was in charge when the ACC signed that albatross of a 10-year contract even as content rights were rising exponentially. They added teams whose best football was behind them. Miami, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, Syracuse and Boston College would have been great in the ’80s and ’90s. He gave us nonsensical divisions. He failed to convince the league to nab West Virginia and Louisville during the early days of expansion. Both programs would have enhanced the football and basketball product. Supposedly both programs were not up to ACC academic standards. Yet, he stood by as UNC effectively neutered the NCAA and academic integrity, not to mention removed any doubt of connection of student-athletes. Maybe the ACC was always doomed. Its core members are smaller universities with small enrollments. However, Swofford and his team bet like they were playing in the 20th century. The Big Ten and the SEC were looking to the 21st century.

— Cameron

I’m less hard on Swofford than most because he gave the ACC schools exactly what they wanted. He recognized only one of the ACC or Big East would survive, so he raided the Big East repeatedly to kill that league and bolster the ACC’s football product. Then, after the Big Ten took Maryland and the rest of the ACC schools were freaking out about getting picked apart by the Big Ten and SEC, he devised a way to lock them together and keep the buzzards at bay.

The price Swofford passed along to the schools for that stability was an albatross of a television contract that will either be the reason the league splits apart or the reason it stays together with a bunch of miserable members who wish they were in other conferences.

Should Swofford have strongly advised the schools that locking in a deal for that long could lead to a revenue gap when leagues such as the Big Ten were lining up multiple bites at the media rights apple thanks to shorter contracts? Yes. But is it his fault they prized not getting raided more than competing from a revenue generation standpoint? No. It’s the fault of the leaders at the schools at the time. They wanted stability at any cost. They got it at an excruciatingly exorbitant cost.

So while I’m not sure the ACC’s grant of rights is as ironclad as the league wants the schools to believe, I’m also not particularly sympathetic to the schools if it turns out that it is exactly as ironclad as promised. They wanted this, and they didn’t stop to think about the ramifications. That isn’t all on Swofford.

Not really a question, but curious about your thoughts/reaction. I know that when USC plays Ohio State for the first time in conference play, it will seem massive. What gets us watching those major matchups is that the loser’s season is on life support (OSU last year) and the winner is must-see TV each week (Oregon last year). If we reach a point where the national champion has four losses, then the weekly matchups don’t matter as much and are no longer must-see TV. At that point (and maybe I’m in the minority), the games are no longer something to schedule around and instead you watch if it’s convenient.

— Rob

The difference between Rob and me is that he decides whether he wants to watch a regular-season game based on the stakes. I decide based on the teams. I just want to see Ohio State and USC play. I don’t particularly care if one’s season is dead at the end of the afternoon. That’s what the postseason is for.

I realize that some of you don’t watch the NFL. But the numbers say the vast majority of you do. In fact, many more people watch the NFL than college football. The NFL plays a season where teams can win the title with five or six losses, and it draws more viewers than any other American sport. So while I understand why that small group that doesn’t watch the NFL will be turned off by this inevitable adjustment to our expectations of college football success, I find it difficult to believe that the massive crossover group that enjoys both will see its enjoyment of college football suffer.

This is the part where some of you chime in and say “If I wanted to watch the NFL, I’d just watch the NFL.” But here’s the rub: Most of you already do. You watch the NFL in droves. So do your friends and neighbors. The people who run college football know that. And since they want a bigger audience, why wouldn’t they attempt to at least partially copy the version of the sport that has a much larger audience?

Be honest with yourselves. You’re not going to schedule a hike during Ohio State-USC just because the losing team isn’t going to suffer a soul-crushing, season-ending fate. A bunch of you are going to watch that game. You’ve proven it with behavior that these people have been measuring for years.

That’s why the people in charge of the Big Ten took USC in the first place and why Fox and multiple other networks will pay out the nose to broadcast those games. They already know what most of you are going to do — even if some of you think you aren’t.

A Random Ranking

Reader Michael wants me to rank early MTV hosts. Those of us who remember when MTV wasn’t just one long “Ridiculousness” rerun probably get the distinction. I’m going to limit this to VJs and people who hosted shows that ran music videos. Sadly, this means Ken Ober won’t make the cut — even though Remote Control ruled. I guess I’ve also eliminated Kurt Loder and Tabitha Soren. Sorry, MTV News. Michael says I must include Lisa Montgomery. (And I have to admit it took me a minute to realize he was referring to Kennedy.)

1. Adam Curry

2. Downtown Julie Brown

3. Martha Quinn

4. Daisy Fuentes

5. Fab 5 Freddy

6. Alan Hunter

7. Bill Bellamy

8. Carson Daly

9. Kennedy

10. Matt Pinfield

(Top photo of North Carolina quarterback Sam Howell: John Byrum / Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)