The ACC meetings are in Amelia Island (Jacksonville) this week, and there will no doubt be some contentious happenings behind closed doors, particularly after FSU played the media game with its BOT Chair making statements to the media about looking at the potential of moving to the Big XII which later proved to be inaccurate or based on inaccurate info, but still ignited the FSU base.

FSU is by far the top property in the ACC, and it doesn't believe it is fair for freeloading schools like BC, Wake and others to earn the same amount from the awful TV contract that just gets worse by the minute. Throw in a perceived bias from the league office against the 'Noles and in favor of UNC and the triangle, and things have the potential to get hot over the next few days.

FSU is dealing from a position of power here, because if the 'Noles leave and pull another school or two, the ACC's TV deal will be seriously slashed.

Ingram Smith, a college football personality based in Atlanta and a contributor to Comcast Sports South, as well as the producer of our podcast, just tweeted that Florida State is may use some of its leverage:

Look for FSU to make the ACC to tell them no this week - demands will include immediate change in leadership

— Ingram Smith (@IngramSmith) May 14, 2012

FSU will more or less be the inverse of the great Vito Corleone -- make them (the ACC/ Swofford) an offer they cant accept

— Ingram Smith (@IngramSmith) May 14, 2012

I have not heard that from elsewhere, but Smith certainly has some sources in the college football world, and that would be a huge development if it comes to fruition.

If I recall, this would not be all that dissimilar to what Oklahoma did last season with the Don Bebe/Big XII situation.

And if FSU is indeed going to do that, I imagine they'd throw in some other requests as well, such as being able to keep 100 percent of bowl or playoff revenue, and maybe a return of some of the tier 3 football games.

That's in keeping with Smith's theme that FSU will ask for things that will not be granted so that it can go to its supporters and tell them "we tried to stay in the ACC, but they were unreasonable."

And since many don't always read the comment section, I wanted to highlight this from frequent contributor, Lou C.:

This latest expansion/contract should be Swofford's undoing. There is no way to spin this.

He either botched the contract, or he botched expansion. At the very least, expansion was not worth any money, eliminated two of four possible spots the ACC had to offer, increased travel costs, and cost teams a home game every other year.

There are only three alternatives:
a) The expansion was good, but Swofford botched the contract negotiations
2) The contract negotiations were good under the circumstances, but the expansion was botched because it didn't bring any real value.
d) Swofford botched both the expansion and the negotiations.
There is no scenario in which you can claim the expansion was successful and contract negotiations were successful.

I think it's a retirable offense, no doubt.