[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Immaculate [@ImmaculateView](/creator/twitter/ImmaculateView) on x 2412 followers Created: 2025-07-20 18:07:38 UTC So I see that talk about realignment is starting to rise again in places like the FSU community. So of course with that come the people claiming in absolute fashion, which is generally not a good idea, that FSU could never get an invite from the B1G due to AAU and has never been looked at by them before. This requires taking all of you on a trip into the past of realignment. Most folks talking about it now weren't paying much attention at the time...but I was. Back in 2011, the ACC added Syracuse and Pittsburgh. When that happened, the ACC also voted to raise their Exit Fee from about XX million to XX million dollars. That is like a XXX% increase! At the time, there were only two members of the ACC whom voted against this. Can you guess who they were? Here, I will tell ya. They were Maryland and Florida State. Maryland ended up announcing in 2012 that they were going to be joining the Big Ten in 2014. As we all know, that addition ended up being two new members, the other being Rutgers. I doubt that many of you truly believe that Rutgers was the conference's first choice for that addition. That is nothing against Rutgers but they were basically the luckiest institution in the history of college sports realignment when that happened. These type of additions dont happen in a short amount of time. A lot of work happens behind the scene for these additions to happen. No way that the additions of Syracuse and Pitt create such an increase in value that a XXX% increase in the Exit Fee is necessary. No, that was a punitive action taken in order to try and stop something that was brewing from happening. We have the evidence of Maryland leaving soon after and we have the evidence of only one other Member of the ACC voting against the Exit Fee. It really doesnt take that much to then deduce that the other likely addition along with Maryland at the time was to be Florida State. Unfortunately though, the cost to leave for the pair went from about XX million dollars up to XXX million dollars at the time. The conference had to help out Maryland with that cost of exit. It would seem that they weren't interested/prepared to do that twice over. Maryland is a top research University with heavy connections to DC and its agencies. That was seen as an investment not just in sports but also in the business of the B1G, which is their research collective. So they got the money, FSU did not. So, why Rutgers? Well yes there is the NYC market but the real reason is because Penn State and the conference had an agreement going way back to when PSU joined that the B1G would expand eastward for them. They didnt do that with Nebraska for the 12th team but that is what brought about the B1G conference championship game and that was a major brand addition at the time so ok. That addition was made in 2011. So here we are, from 2011 to 2012, the B1G was looking to make good on their promise to Penn State. So the addition of Rutgers was their best overall option to try and give something to appease PSU while at the same time getting their Network Partners to agree. It seemed to work at keeping PSU in the conference but one only need to look at the latest schedule model for the B1G to realize that PSU still was not happy. PSU has zero rivals in the new football scheduling model that they play every season. They are the only one that has that status. They never got the big rival that they wanted so they were not playing nice with the conference. Who is that rival? Florida State. It goes all the way back to that ACC vote in 2011. That is how long the Big Ten and Florida State have been tossing this idea around. XXXXXX engagements  [Post Link](https://x.com/ImmaculateView/status/1946995428744155155)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Immaculate @ImmaculateView on x 2412 followers
Created: 2025-07-20 18:07:38 UTC
So I see that talk about realignment is starting to rise again in places like the FSU community.
So of course with that come the people claiming in absolute fashion, which is generally not a good idea, that FSU could never get an invite from the B1G due to AAU and has never been looked at by them before.
This requires taking all of you on a trip into the past of realignment. Most folks talking about it now weren't paying much attention at the time...but I was.
Back in 2011, the ACC added Syracuse and Pittsburgh. When that happened, the ACC also voted to raise their Exit Fee from about XX million to XX million dollars. That is like a XXX% increase!
At the time, there were only two members of the ACC whom voted against this. Can you guess who they were?
Here, I will tell ya. They were Maryland and Florida State.
Maryland ended up announcing in 2012 that they were going to be joining the Big Ten in 2014. As we all know, that addition ended up being two new members, the other being Rutgers. I doubt that many of you truly believe that Rutgers was the conference's first choice for that addition. That is nothing against Rutgers but they were basically the luckiest institution in the history of college sports realignment when that happened.
These type of additions dont happen in a short amount of time. A lot of work happens behind the scene for these additions to happen. No way that the additions of Syracuse and Pitt create such an increase in value that a XXX% increase in the Exit Fee is necessary. No, that was a punitive action taken in order to try and stop something that was brewing from happening.
We have the evidence of Maryland leaving soon after and we have the evidence of only one other Member of the ACC voting against the Exit Fee. It really doesnt take that much to then deduce that the other likely addition along with Maryland at the time was to be Florida State.
Unfortunately though, the cost to leave for the pair went from about XX million dollars up to XXX million dollars at the time. The conference had to help out Maryland with that cost of exit. It would seem that they weren't interested/prepared to do that twice over. Maryland is a top research University with heavy connections to DC and its agencies. That was seen as an investment not just in sports but also in the business of the B1G, which is their research collective. So they got the money, FSU did not.
So, why Rutgers? Well yes there is the NYC market but the real reason is because Penn State and the conference had an agreement going way back to when PSU joined that the B1G would expand eastward for them. They didnt do that with Nebraska for the 12th team but that is what brought about the B1G conference championship game and that was a major brand addition at the time so ok. That addition was made in 2011. So here we are, from 2011 to 2012, the B1G was looking to make good on their promise to Penn State.
So the addition of Rutgers was their best overall option to try and give something to appease PSU while at the same time getting their Network Partners to agree. It seemed to work at keeping PSU in the conference but one only need to look at the latest schedule model for the B1G to realize that PSU still was not happy. PSU has zero rivals in the new football scheduling model that they play every season. They are the only one that has that status. They never got the big rival that they wanted so they were not playing nice with the conference.
Who is that rival? Florida State.
It goes all the way back to that ACC vote in 2011. That is how long the Big Ten and Florida State have been tossing this idea around.
XXXXXX engagements
