ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[CousCuse]

You can not say this with any certainty. It may be unlikely, but to say it definitively is just your opinion...period.

Ultimately, it comes down to the economics, etc. of challenging the GOR, with the large risks of the uncertainty that exists, lack of precedent, etc. "Iron Clad" etc. gets thrown around a lot, but there are instances where legit arguments can be made to void such agreements.

In my past life, I dealt with many hold-harmless agreements/contracts, etc. that were alleged to be "iron clad" only not to be the case in reality. For instance, you can not pass negligence through a contract, etc., it makes the contract null and void.

Another thing that make contracts void is a contract that goes against public policy. In FSU's case, as a public institution, they (as well as other publics) probably could make an argument(s) along these grounds, etc. albeit, still very high risk vs. current/present day reward.

As time moves on, and the high risks ($$$) of challenging the GOR becomes much lessor, etc., it would not surprise me one bit if the legal challenge is commenced.

Wouldn't FSU's legal action be against ESPN who holds the GOR's and seemingly has failed to give increased revenue to the ACC while rewarding the SEC by huge margins?

 

[Willy75]

SMU with the right leadership has the ability to generate very, very serious money to compete in football. Witness the Pony Express era (and how much of what they did then is arguably legal now). Basketball isn't so bad either. I'd love to see them in the ACC. Tulane also fits well with the current mix of ACC teams.
From a strictly SU perspective I don't get the enthusiasm to bring in big state schools like Oregon or Washington or whomever. Our winning percentage against those programs is going to be about 30%.

 

[CousCuse]

You can not say this with any certainty. It may be unlikely, but to say it definitively is just your opinion...period.

Ultimately, it comes down to the economics, etc. of challenging the GOR, with the large risks of the uncertainty that exists, lack of precedent, etc. "Iron Clad" etc. gets thrown around a lot, but there are instances where legit arguments can be made to void such agreements.

In my past life, I dealt with many hold-harmless agreements/contracts, etc. that were alleged to be "iron clad" only not to be the case in reality. For instance, you can not pass negligence through a contract, etc., it makes the contract null and void.

Another thing that make contracts void is a contract that goes against public policy. In FSU's case, as a public institution, they (as well as other publics) probably could make an argument(s) along these grounds, etc. albeit, still very high risk vs. current/present day reward.

As time moves on, and the high risks ($$$) of challenging the GOR becomes much lessor, etc., it would not surprise me one bit if the legal challenge is commenced.

Additionally, the "look in" clause imply's action.

 

[gmoney44]

You can not say this with any certainty. It may be unlikely, but to say it definitively is just your opinion...period.

Ultimately, it comes down to the economics, etc. of challenging the GOR, with the large risks of the uncertainty that exists, lack of precedent, etc. "Iron Clad" etc. gets thrown around a lot, but there are instances where legit arguments can be made to void such agreements.

In my past life, I dealt with many hold-harmless agreements/contracts, etc. that were alleged to be "iron clad" only not to be the case in reality. For instance, you can not pass negligence through a contract, etc., it makes the contract null and void.

Another thing that make contracts void is a contract that goes against public policy. In FSU's case, as a public institution, they (as well as other publics) probably could make an argument(s) along these grounds, etc. albeit, still very high risk vs. current/present day reward.

As time moves on, and the high risks ($$$) of challenging the GOR becomes much lessor, etc., it would not surprise me one bit if the legal challenge is commenced.

Texas and Ok with all that money and clout couldn’t weasel their way out.

 

[TerryD]

Yeah that was a death blow to ever seeing ND being forced to join a conference. I didn’t care where they ended up at this point, knowing they’d never join the ACC but it would have been fun to see them forced to join a conference.

Long-term. If conferences grow in size, ND could be forced to join a conference if leagues won’t play them on their OOC schedule b/c their conference schedule is already too difficult.

Are conferences voluntary organizations, or not?

An interesting concept, that of forcing a school to join (against its will) a supposedly voluntary grouping of other schools.

Seems a bit contradictory. That, and tyrannical to boot.

 

[TexanMark]

Are conferences voluntary organizations, or not?

An interesting concept, that of forcing a school to join (against its will) a supposedly voluntary grouping of other schools.

Seems a bit contradictory. That, and tyrannical to boot.

let them sue

 

[Hoo's That]

You can not say this with any certainty. It may be unlikely, but to say it definitively is just your opinion...period.

Ultimately, it comes down to the economics, etc. of challenging the GOR, with the large risks of the uncertainty that exists, lack of precedent, etc. "Iron Clad" etc. gets thrown around a lot, but there are instances where legit arguments can be made to void such agreements.

In my past life, I dealt with many hold-harmless agreements/contracts, etc. that were alleged to be "iron clad" only not to be the case in reality. For instance, you can not pass negligence through a contract, etc., it makes the contract null and void.

Another thing that make contracts void is a contract that goes against public policy. In FSU's case, as a public institution, they (as well as other publics) probably could make an argument(s) along these grounds, etc. albeit, still very high risk vs. current/present day reward.

As time moves on, and the high risks ($$$) of challenging the GOR becomes much lessor, etc., it would not surprise me one bit if the legal challenge is commenced.

It's very difficult to see how anyone could challenge GoR in court. The economics were such that Texas and Oklahoma were able to negotiate a buyout that they felt was reasonable, given the big increase in money they'll get from the SEC in comparison to the Big XII. USC and UCLA are waiting for the Pac-12 GoR to expire rather than pay a buyout. The ACC buyout isn't static; it grows each year, too. If the growth can keep the ACC in the same relative position with the B1G and SEC money, we probably won't see anyone announce they're leaving until 2033-34 in anticipation of their actual departure in 2036.

 

[TerryD]

let them sue

Or just refuse to be forced.

 

[orangecuse]

Texas and Ok with all that money and clout couldn’t weasel their way out.

Texas and Oklahoma made the economic decision (again, risk vs. reward, etc.) due to the relatively short duration anyways before being gone; and settled from there. A probable more prudent business decision vs. challenging it considering their situation.

It's very difficult to see how anyone could challenge GoR in court. The economics were such that Texas and Oklahoma were able to negotiate a buyout that they felt was reasonable, given the big increase in money they'll get from the SEC in comparison to the Big XII. USC and UCLA are waiting for the Pac-12 GoR to expire rather than pay a buyout. The ACC buyout isn't static; it grows each year, too. If the growth can keep the ACC in the same relative position with the B1G and SEC money, we probably won't see anyone announce they're leaving until 2033-34 in anticipation of their actual departure in 2036.

It's very difficult to see how anyone would've thought Roe vs. Wade would have been overturned after all of these years, yet...

Yes, as mentioned, it's about the economics, risk/uncertainty vs. reward, etc. It made economic sense for Texas and Oklahoma based on their particulars, etc. to "negotiate" their buyout.

I agree completely that challenging the GOR in court is no small undertaking, etc. Obviously, it's very solid and in all probability a significant uphill challenge. However, at the same token, it's possibly not invincible, but because of the economics of challenging it, as well as the particulars, uncertainties, etc., there has yet to be anyone willing to take on the risks/role the dice.

 

[longtimefan]

Or just refuse to be forced.

The coercion would be structural and economic. If a change in the structure of the CFP makes it much more difficult--or even impossible--for ND to compete for a championship, the economics might force them to join a league.

 

[qdawgg]

Are conferences voluntary organizations, or not?

An interesting concept, that of forcing a school to join (against its will) a supposedly voluntary grouping of other schools.

Seems a bit contradictory. That, and tyrannical to boot.

Correct and the group of schools in conferences should voluntarily band together to force ND to join a conference or voluntarily refuse to schedule them as OOC opponents. I think we agree, great point.

 

[TerryD]

Correct and the group of schools in conferences should voluntarily band together to force ND to join a conference or voluntarily refuse to schedule them as OOC opponents. I think we agree, great point.

I have heard "THIS will force ND into a conference" for thirty years now. All were wrong.

Wake me up when ND actually is forced in real life, as opposed to message board fantasies.

 

[Chris02M]

I have heard "THIS will force ND into a conference" for thirty years now. All were wrong.

Wake me up when ND actually is forced in real life, as opposed to message board fantasies.

only covid or an act of god can make that happen

 

[elimunelson]

Correct and the group of schools in conferences should voluntarily band together to force ND to join a conference or voluntarily refuse to schedule them as OOC opponents. I think we agree, great point.

It’s lunacy to push ND while SU would leave the ACC tomorrow and screw their partners if invited to the BIG and could weasel out of the GOR

Let’s stop w the realignment bullying. Makes us look like a small brained operation. We will do what’s best for SU and ND should continue the same.

 

[qdawgg]

I have heard "THIS will force ND into a conference" for thirty years now. All were wrong.

Wake me up when ND actually is forced in real life, as opposed to message board fantasies.

We know nobody can force ND into a conference the way ND coaches can force a kid into a hydraulic lift to film practice. Keep taking the high road.

 

[MSOrange]

 

[Chris02M]

I think we are scheduled to get about 40-42 mil so around 20 mil difference.

 

[MSOrange]

I think we are scheduled to get about 40-42 mil so around 20 mil difference.

That's what I was thinking and the reason I posted that was a point of reference to compare the numbers.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

If ESPN is willing to pay full price for PAC teams moving to the B12, surely they also would to the ACC where they have a bigger investment. If Arizona goes to the B12, the ACC better grab Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Stanford, Cal, Utah.

 

[qdawgg]

They may end up being pretty accurate when all is said and done but these are “projected” tix sales. Big difference between actual tix sales.

 

[MSOrange]

They may end up being pretty accurate when all is said and done but these are “projected” tix sales. Big difference between actual tix sales.

I was mainly focusing on the first part of the tweet talking about the money coming from the conference, but you're right projected isn't actual.

 

[sutomcat]

If ESPN is willing to pay full price for PAC teams moving to the B12, surely they also would to the ACC where they have a bigger investment. If Arizona goes to the B12, the ACC better grab Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Stanford, Cal, Utah.

One thing to consider if the ACC expands is the ACCN.

It is 50% owned by espn and 50% by the ACC schools. If the ACC does things like the B1G, any new member will need to buy their share of the ACCN, which will be deducted over time from their revenue checks.that means a bunch of extra revenue for all the existing ACC schools.

The P12 schools don’t have to worry about that with the network less B12. But they also won’t be getting an extra $10 million a year for network revenue…..

 

[qdawgg]

I was mainly focusing on the first part of the tweet talking about the money coming from the conference, but you're right projected isn't actual.

Definitely. I didn’t reply that way to be argumentative about what you posted. It’s a ton of $ for sure and clearly all the B10 schools are doing well.

 

[TheCusian]

I have heard "THIS will force ND into a conference" for thirty years now. All were wrong.

Wake me up when ND actually is forced in real life, as opposed to message board fantasies.

Lol. All this talk of independence and you guys play all of your games for all sports but 2 extra OOC football games in the ACC.

 

[Moontan]

I wonder if the B1G still does their net football ticket sale sharing.
10 years ago they had to provide $300k-$1M per conference home game to the conference. If it is still required, I wonder if the rates have gone up.