forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Tad Footeball said:
Question about the theory of schools coming "cheap" to new conferences as I believe that's going to be a tough sell for some that currently see themselves as the cream of their current conferences:

Do you guys think an Oregon or Washington take a B1G invite if they're permanently "little brother" status and there's no phase-in period to a full share like Rutgers received?

The B1G could* justify this by deeming their current schools (inclusive of USC & UCLA) as getting higher "legacy" shares or even setting up some incentive where the new schools receive a full share if they win the conference or a title. This position would seemingly handcuff them a little when going after the ACC schools that would garner SEC interest and even almighty Notre Dame.

We always (and mostly correctly) look at everything as growth growth growth nationally and with power programs with the B1G but mayyyybe there also isn't an appetite to be handing out full shares left and right- especially with schools that essentially have or will have nowhere else to go?

Buy as always, I digress. Interesting days ahead. See everyone on a Saturday in September in 2025 in Madison to kick off our conference schedule.
Click to expand...
Personally I think it’s not a good idea for anyone to become a half wife if they full on marry someone else at same time
 
Advertisement
Tad Footeball said:
Question about the theory of schools coming "cheap" to new conferences as I believe that's going to be a tough sell for some that currently see themselves as the cream of their current conferences:

Do you guys think an Oregon or Washington take a B1G invite if they're permanently "little brother" status and there's no phase-in period to a full share like Rutgers received?

The B1G could* justify this by deeming their current schools (inclusive of USC & UCLA) as getting higher "legacy" shares or even setting up some incentive where the new schools receive a full share if they win the conference or a title. This position would seemingly handcuff them a little when going after the ACC schools that would garner SEC interest and even almighty Notre Dame.

We always (and mostly correctly) look at everything as growth growth growth nationally and with power programs with the B1G but mayyyybe there also isn't an appetite to be handing out full shares left and right- especially with schools that essentially have or will have nowhere else to go?

Buy as always, I digress. Interesting days ahead. See everyone on a Saturday in September in 2025 in Madison to kick off our conference schedule.
Click to expand...
I continue to think that ultimately long-term the Big10 and SEC will end up getting performance based payouts. Sure there will be a floor, but ultimately the programs bringing in the most money and success SHOULD get more money. Thats how it worked when we were in the BIG East.
Like say instead of the projected payout of $100M to each school in the Big10 in 2030, the top 6-8 get $120M, The middle 6-8 get $100M, then the remainder get like $90M... And maybe the difference is even lesser or greater. But in that scenario it makes it so it still makes sense to add schools like Stanford, Cal, GTech, etc. And If schools like Oregon and Washington join and are successful it means schools like Illinois gets less. But they'd still be in a far better scenario than they would otherwise be if they hadn't expanded to 24...
 
Last edited:
Ispyin said:
Look I think the minute one goes, whatever they ”negotiate“ will rapidly become moot. Other schools will bolt and at some point there will be 8, they will vote to dissolve and then all negotiations start again with stronger hand
Click to expand...
Yes, But what I'm just saying is there is some amount of money that makes it worth it to pay to get this ball rolling that even leads to the dissolution in the first place. Like maybe agreeing to paying $300M or whatever (while only actually paying $30M in year 1 of the exit), gets the ball rolling on all this that forces the inevitable dissolution. And in that $300M settlement agreement, you have conditions in place that if 8 ACC schools leave the conference (the same thing as a vote to dissolve), then the remaining you owe is $0... or something like that.

I think we should be willing to pay $100M asap to leave. Like a while ago I asked if people would prefer to pay $100M to be in B1G for next season or pay $0 to be in B1G for 2026. Like technically financially it is unlikely to be a good move to essentially pay $50M/yr to leave 2 years early...
 
Advertisement
Ispyin said:
I call bs on that. math would be way off. They’d be negative in first few years

edit - maybe the framework of what he is saying is directionally right but his numbers at a minimum don’t make sense in the beginning of the deal
Click to expand...
their AD is broke and if the contract isnt enforceable, why even have a buyout?
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
passitback said:
Click to expand...


So 30 million per year paid out to the ACC to leave the conference and let's say the annual payout per year from the BIG or SEC is 70 million...why would FSU agree to that when the ACC just paid out 37 million per team this last year. If they owe 30 from the 70 thats 40 leftover so they do all this for 3 million difference? Make it make sense.
 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
You need to report to no-notice drug testing.

Only path for FSU to Big10 is full-on Big10-ACC merger. A distinct possibility.

👆Let's come back to this in future...
Click to expand...
Agree 100% .. let's revisit this topic in the very near future. The B10 absolutely does want FSU ... apparently you haven't really followed ANY of the people connected to B10 realignment issues.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top