ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment | Page 368 | Syracusefan.com

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

Well that's it ladies and germs.
Except... a conference has to believe that the add is going to ADD to their pie. If teams are making $100M a year in 2029-2030... who can they add to make more? We will get a clear Tier I and Tier II, at best... with B1G/SEC as Tier 1 and ACC/B12/Pac as Tier 2.

Now... if the B1G offered teams a 50% share to be involved, then maybe things would move. But even so, a team needs to add $50M to make it worth it.

Sky is not falling yet. Although it is lower...
 
Throwing a lot of legal terms around recklessly.

#1... why would federal courts be involved? These are state court actions. The Tallahassee based Supreme Court is a risk for the ACC.
#2... getting the lawsuits dismissed would be legal consideration alone.

Please, stay in your non-legal lane.
Federal courts are the proper jurisdiction when multiple states are involved. SCOTUS has the final say in contract matters. Federal courts have original jurisdiction in IP cases.

No, dismissing a case alone is not consideration, especially when the financial matters are so great and the party likely to lose is is the party attempting to use dismissal as consideration. This is because they are not giving up anything. In this instance, the giving up of a likely losing case is not consideration worth hundreds of millions of dollars. To be sure, the dismissal of ongoing litigation is generally included in the settlement.

Anyway, thanks for your legal expertise.
 
Federal courts are the proper jurisdiction when multiple states are involved. SCOTUS has the final say in contract matters. Federal courts have original jurisdiction in IP cases.

No, dismissing a case alone is not consideration, especially when the financial matters are so great and the party likely to lose is is the party attempting to use dismissal as consideration. This is because they are not giving up anything. In this instance, the giving up of a likely losing case is not consideration worth hundreds of millions of dollars. To be sure, the dismissal of ongoing litigation is generally included in the settlement.

Anyway, thanks for your legal expertise.
You are way way off with nearly every statement you make touching on legal issues. I can tell you do not have a legal background (I do).

Federal courts may be proper jurisdiction where the parties file the lawsuit in a federal court. Here, the ACC and FSU voluntarily filed in state court. They made their choice of state court, rather than federal court. They might have had the option to remove to federal court, but this did not happen.

IP issues are likely not significant, but even if they were, the parties opted to stay out of federal court. State courts can resolve IP issues.

SCOTUS may have jurisdiction to take on a contract case, but rarely do so because contract issues are typically resolved by state law. SCOTUS takes few cases every year. Very hard to bank on the SCOTUS getting it right. AThe interest this case might generate is the biggest reason that it could get involved.. but it could also easily punt, as it does 1000s of times a year.

Not sure you have any idea what consideration means or why it is important. The ACC could have reached the same agreement and consideration would have been FSU merely agreeing NOT to sue. Foregoing a right defeats a claim that an agreement is not binding for lack of consideration.

As it relates to the sufficiency of consideration, that is also something that comes down to who is going to challenge and how? Now that the ADs have signed off (which you inexplicably thought would not happen)... good luck. Unless FSU/Clemson do not approve, it's a done deal... whatever the conseqeunces.
 
Now that the ADs have signed off (which you inexplicably thought would not happen)... good luck. Unless FSU/Clemson do not approve, it's a done deal... whatever the conseqeunces.
TBF, I don't believe he said it would not happen, only that he hoped it wouldn't happen.
 
TBF, I don't believe he said it would not happen, only that he hoped it wouldn't happen.
Ok, but talked a lot of legal nonsense for two days... as if some thread here means anything when the actual parties have reached an agreement to do otherwise. Meanwhile, every entity has approved the settlement. It is a done deal. FSU can leave tomorrow for $165M or so.
 
I think some here are underestimating the fact that the other conferences may not want anyone from the ACC at the moment.

Let’s face it. The overall value of each individual school within the conference has never been lower than it is now. From a competitive standpoint basketball is a dumpster fire overall and football is maybe a step up from that. Clemson probably has the best shot at being poached and I’m interested to see how the politics play out with South Carolina already in the SEC.
 
If the reporting is accurate and the smaller viewership (legacy) schools are caving in to FSU and Clemson, there must be an "existential" reason., i.e., they felt the conference was in jeopardy (as some have been posting). Either way, it's been a public knife fight, particularly unbecoming for supposed institutions of higher learning. Good to get it resolved and still have a conference, despite some distasteful concessions.
Heard on satellite radio that the ACC didn't want to risk a court ordered settlement so the parties settled so there were probably some legal points that they thought they could lose. And, they said the conference schools realized that 2030 is going to change college sports so schools thought buying 5 years of stability was the right decision before that date.
 
I think some here are underestimating the fact that the other conferences may not want anyone from the ACC at the moment.

Let’s face it. The overall value of each individual school within the conference has never been lower than it is now. From a competitive standpoint basketball is a dumpster fire overall and football is maybe a step up from that. Clemson probably has the best shot at being poached and I’m interested to see how the politics play out with South Carolina already in the SEC.
Temper your view of on-field and on-court performance with the underlying fundamentals of each school.

Several schools in the ACC are extremely attractive due to their fan base size, brand strength, financial resources, and commitment to competing at the highest levels of all sports.

This is why the B1G would love UVA, for example, to be a member tomorrow, even if their current state of football and hoops is poor.
 
Temper your view of on-field and on-court performance with the underlying fundamentals of each school.

Several schools in the ACC are extremely attractive due to their fan base size, brand strength, financial resources, and commitment to competing at the highest levels of all sports.

This is why the B1G would love UVA, for example, to be a member tomorrow, even if their current state of football and hoops is poor.
I know you're in the industry and they are a state school, but that is just shocking to me. They had the third worst tv ratings in the conference and haven't really adjusted to this new NIL model. They would be Rutgers in that conference.
 
I could see SU getting an invite to the Big at a reduced level of payment.
 
Good read from John Talty of CBS Sports

this may be the most important part:

"The Pac-12 used to do the same, financially rewarding the schools that appeared on television the most, allowing the Los Angeles-based schools -- USC and UCLA -- to greatly benefit. Eventually, the other Pac-12 schools got frustrated with the unequal revenue sharing and came up with a plan to stop it.

When that plan was revealed, then-USC AD Pat Haden threatened to leave the conference if his school didn't receive a greater cut of the financial pie. It'd be more than a decade for that threat to be realized, but eventually, USC and UCLA left for the greener pastures of the Big Ten. That started the implosion that ultimately toppled the Pac-12 leaving only Oregon State and Washington State.


Chris Hill, the former long-time Utah AD who was in the room when Haden made his threat, said not giving USC a bigger cut proved to be a fatal error.

"We should have woken up and said this is unique," Hill said in The Price: What It Takes to Win College Football's Era of Chaos. "We have one market that dominates and we need to recognize that and give them more money since we're all making a lot more money and accept that. We didn't do that. At the end of the day, that was a big mistake."

The ACC learned from the Pac-12's missteps, with schools realizing taking a financial hit to keep the conference together is better than the alternative. The bigger question is: Will other conferences have to follow suit?"

Of equal interest to me is:

"The theme of the 2030s could be consolidation rather than the realignment that has enveloped the sport in recent years.

"Wouldn't it be better if we could increase the size of the pie and shrink the number of pieces?" former NCAA president Mark Emmert told me last year. "Because of the self-interest thing, they are more than happy to raid each other's conferences, but sooner or later, they are going to have to turn on each other."

That can happen in one of two ways, and I think we will see it. One way is that by 2036, BT and SEC will have decimated the ACC forever. At that point, they agree to finalize a system in which there are only 2 major confences with total control over CFB. They will have the power to force ND in or to be cut out totally. The playoffs they run will be closed to just those twoleagues, which each will have 20-24 members. I think under that scenario each boots 1-3 current members as it adds from the ACC and possibly the Big 12 (say the AZ schools and/or Utah and maybe Colorado).

The other way is that 3 leagues survive as Major. If that happens, then I doubt that BT and SEC boot anybody as they will be assured that the #3 league will be poorer than 1 and 2. In that case, either ACC or Big 12 could be that #3, but each would need to drop its biggest deadweight and add from the other to become #3 of 3 major conferences. The playoffs then would be restricted to those 3 leagues.

But rest assured, at that time neither Wake nor BC has any chance to be in a Major conference. Also be assured that both BT and SEC want a system in which there is no chance of any Sunbelt or Mac or MWC or new Pac team or decimated ACC or Big 12 to get a playoff spot.
 
The BT can get cheap inventory with 4 MT AAU schools and 2 CA ACC members that are as Elite as schools get.
exactly, still a balance between having some brand recognition and inventory. Whether it makes sense to offer a school like SU 30% or or 2 CA acc schools 15% beats me. Do I think it will happen for SU, probably not. Do I think the article you posted makes sense, absolutely.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
172,337
Messages
5,011,694
Members
6,026
Latest member
Upstate33

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
1,365
Total visitors
1,562


...
Top Bottom