forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Yeah, this one is going to be a bad mixture of factors, and will likely prove out some of our basic predictions on "avenues for exit".

First, to be clear, there are two possible extreme ends of the "outcome" spectrum, and a lot of possibilities in between. One extreme is to go "scorched earth" and to have 8 or more schools vote to dissolve the ACC. The other extreme is that everyone is nice and polite and the ACC lets everyone leave who wants to leave, and takes enough additional schools to replace them, and there are no GOR implicaations, and everyone who leaves happily pays their exit fees.

Personally, I'd love to see the latter outcome. I don't want to see yet another conference collapse if it doesn't need to happen that way. But my realistic side says that we are probably closer to the first outcome because certain schools will not want to compromise, thus schools that want to leave have to "hold hostage" the concept of expansion as a bargaining chip.

Having said that...

It's tricky...

I am sure that some schools are trying to convey cooperativeness on the expansion issue as a way to continue to figure out a pathway that takes them out of the ACC, without being subject to spurious claims of collusion and bad-faith bargaining. Fine. Whatever. And on an academic basis, Stanford-Cal would be amazing additions.

But we can't ignore the math. Either in what has led us to this point (widening revenue gap between the ACC and the Big 10/SEC) and what can happen when you add more "Together 4ever" voices to a voting bloc.

The brutal reality is that NONE of these steps are going to bring the ACC $75M per school. NONE of these steps are going to force ESPN to do something that ESPN doesn't want to do.

Therefore, no matter what pie-in-the-sky and stars-in-the-eyes that seem to come from this illusory "Era of Good Feelings" where nobody has given notice and it LOOKS LIKE other schools actually want to sign on to our disastrous GOR and GOR extension to 2036, the truth is that there are still some schools lookig for the door.

I've made it clear, I am anti-Frenk. And if Frenk overrules Rad and casts a Miami vote in favor of inviting Stanford-Cal WITHOUT EXTRACTING SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW MIAMI TO EXIT THE ACC AND JOIN THE BIG 10 WITHOUT OPPOSITION AND AT MINIMAL COST, then I am going to do everything I can as an alum to see that Frenk is removed as UM President as soon as possible.

If Beta Blake and BC (and Syracuse and Duke and Wake and everyone else) want to have a still-existing conference once we leave, that's fine, but it's going take some compromise.

A vote to "expand" the ACC before we solve all our other problems is both stupid and self-sabotage. So, sure, it seems like something that is JUUUUST dumb enough for ACC Presidents to actually do.

"Destined for Failure". That should be the name of the ACC *** tape and/or the subtitle on the retrospective history of the conference once known as the ACC.
Click to expand...
I think the easiest way to get rid of him is just to release the lower half of his shirtless picture
 
I would like to hear an explanation as to why Frenk would have a problem leaving for the BIG10. Given his background, it seems he would welcome a move into that conference, as it is arguably a better academic conference, especially from a research perspective. Unless it's purely financial and his opinion is that it will cost UM more money than it's worth.
 


Considering this tweet is coming from Jon Wilner in the Bay Area, it's quite possible this is more about Stanford and possibly Cal trying to "leverage" their ways into the B1G than any change of minds among ACC expansion voters.

Same sort of thing happened two weeks ago when UW and Oregon were (supposedly) getting ready to sign a Pac-12 agreement, but then boom! — FOX gets the money right and the Huskies and Ducks are headed to their preferred destination.

Nobody believes Stanford and Cal in the ACC is a sustainable arrangement for the long term
 
Last edited:
RVACane said:
For me, the TOC/NVC subplot is the best part of this thread.

We should all want TOC to be right because it’s better for us that we can get out of the ACC but there is a part of me that thinks it would be entertaining on the subplot side to watch TOC tell NVC why we’re stuck in the ACC until 2036 but it isn’t what he said or thinks it is. 😂
Click to expand...


Sure, but this is something that would never happen.

If UM decides to make a change, there's nothing I can do. I provide the most accurate up-to-date information possible, but if that changes, so do the predictions.

I said what I said. I'm not changing that. If I'm proven wrong, so be it.

If someone wants to argue that UM is going to stand pat and live with FOURTEEN MORE YEARS of revenue deficits that START at $25 million per year but will absolutely increase each year....

...and that we will just swallow what will likely be a half-billion in revenue shortfall, as well as permanently losing our spot at the Big 10 table....

....because we are scurred of the GOR, and we have conference loyalty, and we are excited by the academic additions of Stanford-Cal, and we expect manna to rain down from the heavens....

I mean, I don't know how to illustrate the stark choice any more plainly....

But when I think of all the GREAT OPTIONS that legal genius @NorthernVirginiaCane has presented to us in order to get through the next 13 years of revenue strangulation, I am reminded of the great performance that Bronson Pinchot gave as Elliot Blitzer in "True Romance". It's the scene where he is wearing a wire and Christian Slater's Clarence Worley character has a gun to his head, and all poor Elliot can do is cry and call out for the police to come out and save him from dying.

And the cops just sit there in hiding and let the bad situation play itself out.

1692298096183.png
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
RVACane said:
For me, the TOC/NVC subplot is the best part of this thread.

We should all want TOC to be right because it’s better for us that we can get out of the ACC but there is a part of me that thinks it would be entertaining on the subplot side to watch TOC tell NVC why we’re stuck in the ACC until 2036 but it isn’t what he said or thinks it is. 😂
Click to expand...


1692298216237.png
 
RVACane said:
For me, the TOC/NVC subplot is the best part of this thread.

We should all want TOC to be right because it’s better for us that we can get out of the ACC but there is a part of me that thinks it would be entertaining on the subplot side to watch TOC tell NVC why we’re stuck in the ACC until 2036 but it isn’t what he said or thinks it is. 😂
Click to expand...
oS8pRFxbD0d44.gif
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Sure, but this is something that would never happen.

If UM decides to make a change, there's nothing I can do. I provide the most accurate up-to-date information possible, but if that changes, so do the predictions.

I said what I said. I'm not changing that. If I'm proven wrong, so be it.

If someone wants to argue that UM is going to stand pat and live with FOURTEEN MORE YEARS of revenue deficits that START at $25 million per year but will absolutely increase each year....

...and that we will just swallow what will likely be a half-billion in revenue shortfall, as well as permanently losing our spot at the Big 10 table....

....because we are scurred of the GOR, and we have conference loyalty, and we are excited by the academic additions of Stanford-Cal, and we expect manna to rain down from the heavens....

I mean, I don't know how to illustrate the stark choice any more plainly....

But when I think of all the GREAT OPTIONS that legal genius @NorthernVirginiaCane has presented to us in order to get through the next 14 years of revenue strangulation, I am reminded of the great performance that Bronson Pinchot gave as Elliot Blitzer in "True Romance". It's the scene where he is wearing a wire and Christian Slater's Clarence Worley character has a gun to his head, and all poor Elliot can do is cry and call out for the police to come out and save him from dying.

And the cops just sit there in hiding and let the bad situation play itself out.

View attachment 251542
Click to expand...
If those comparative revenue deficits are accurate, then even an anticipatory breach and paying an exit fee would make sense. Which is extreme.

Of course it's better to have a situation where there is a united front, and the exit fee is more negotiable; but, at the figures you stated, it makes sense to just breach, leave, and litigate a settlement on your own if need be.

That's how extreme the money situation is. There is no 2036, lol.
 
Advertisement
JeddTheFisch said:
If those comparative revenue deficits are accurate, then even an anticipatory breach and paying an exit fee would make sense. Which is extreme.

Of course it's better to have a situation where there is a united front, and the exit fee is more negotiable; but, at the figures you stated, it makes sense to just breach, leave, and litigate a settlement on your own if need be.

That's how extreme the money situation is. There is no 2036, lol.
Click to expand...


I believe that the CURRENT TV share for the ACC is around 35M and the Big 10 is 60M. And that is BEFORE the impact of certain changes that are bound to happen, plus the new 12-team playoff format, plus the "new" Big 10 TV deal which will be negoiated BEFORE the ACC gets its next shot in 2036. BY 2029, THE BIG 10 PAYOUT WILL BE $70M.

The revenue deficit STARTS at $25M per year, and only goes up from there.

But, yeah, I guess if some "I do assigments" legal expert wants to tell us that we have to stand pat for the next 13 seasons, I guess he must be right. Because IRREVOCABLE. Because ironclad. Because enforceable.

Breach a contract or near-certain death. What a difficult choice...
 
Last edited:
NorthernVirginiaCane said:
Well, I really doubt it's a simple majority. That's not how these associations work. It's a super majority to amend and I think likely that to dissolve. Never seen any good reporting either way.

And I don't see any ACC schools voting to dissolve unless they have an ironclad invite from the SEC or Big Ten, and 11 invites seems unlikely. We will see.

No ACC school is leaving for the Big 12. The ACC money is 33% higher now. It would be about the same if FSU/Clemson leave but then you add $240 mm in exit fees to split 12 ways. Plus academics matter to the ACC presidents and they aren't going there. The ACC minus fsu/Clemson is still better than the big 12.

My guess is instead Stanford and Cal end up in the ACC soon. espn wants the ACC to survive and needs late night programming now that the Pac is dead, Stanford can afford a partial share and this can be done in a way to begin the movement towards inequal distributions. This is just my speculation, but it's too good of a school and too good of a market to not happen. 7 of the top academic 30 schools matter to the ACC presidents more than anything else.

So yeah, I think most of you have wasted the summer getting excited over something that had a zero percent chance of happening.
Click to expand...
[BGCOLOR=initial] [/BGCOLOR]
[BGCOLOR=initial]We're all just speculating about how many votes it takes to dissolve the ACC, void the GOR, etc. One thing we know for a fact is that it takes 12 teams to vote "yes" on expansion (adding Stanford and Cal, possibly SMU). Multiple reports say the straw poll indicated 11 teams would vote yes (including Miami, as I predicted since Rad was one of the biggest advocates for the GOR). So the acc is just one vote away from expansion, which I think would end the plan to get out of the GOR by dissolving the acc, and pretty much means no one is going anywhere. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]The surprise holdout is NC St. FSU and Clemson wanting to kill the acc makes sense because they know for sure they can go SEC, UNC is probably best positioned out of any ACC team as it will be a bidding war between SEC and B1G for them. My guess is NC St feels that the state legislature will force whichever conference takes UNC to also take NC St. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]While I think it's likely NC St will get to ride on UNCs coat tails into the P2, it's not a guarantee (see Oregon St). So I believe it's not out of the realm of possibility that NC St can be convinced to vote yes on expansion. It seems at least one expansion candidate thinks the winds have shifted in its favor [/BGCOLOR]


[BGCOLOR=initial](if I may preemptively address a certain group of posters that don't understand the difference between facts and opinions - this is not saying that Stanford is getting in, only that the school feels more confident they can get in- they could be completely wrong about the direction things are trending[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]). [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial] Expansion is the most practical way to increase the payouts per team (as bad as the GOR deal is, it HAS to allow for some increase in payouts if the conference expands). IMO, after the vote for expansion, that's when the real intrigue will start because the acc will finally have some leverage in the negotiation with espn. [/BGCOLOR]
 
Last edited:
Wario Cristobum said:
[BGCOLOR=initial] [/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]The surprise holdout is NC St. FSU and Clemson wanting to kill the acc makes sense because they know for sure they can go SEC, UNC is probably best positioned out of any ACC team as it will be a bidding war between SEC and B1G for them. My guess is NC St feels that the state legislature will force whichever conference takes UNC to also take NC St. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]While I think it's likely NC St will get to ride on UNCs coat tails into the P2, it's not a guarantee (see Oregon St).[/BGCOLOR]
Click to expand...

It's quite possible both UNC and NC State have a wink-nod agreement with the SEC.

Per the Athletic, the commissioner was quite coy last week when asked about any expansion-related discussions:

"Sankey said several times he was 'not actively recruiting' any other schools. He said he fielded phone calls Friday and Saturday that were along the lines of, 'What do you think of this?' He added: 'There’s nobody calling me seeking or demanding entry.'

'We’re always going to be attentive to what’s happening around us, and perhaps there will be some opportunity, Sankey said. 'But there has to be some philosophical alignment. And it’s not something where we’re out actively recruiting other institutions.'"

Sounds like someone making sure his ducks are in a row for when it's time to make a move
 
Advertisement
Also from that Athletic article:

"Sankey pointed out the SEC remains in contiguous states. Asked if that could change, he answered: 'Well not that we’ve seen based on current circumstances. … We don’t need to be in four time zones to generate interest on the West Coast, or really across the globe.'

1. Shot at the B1G and their "West Wing" exclave on the Pacific Ocean

2. A hint that the SEC may not be interested in being used for leverage by the Leprechauns to gain a favorable arrangement from the B1G

3. Most relevant is the inference Sankey's most likely expansion path involves locking up the states in or adjacent to the South: FSU-Clemson, UNC-NC State, UVA-Va Tech and ACC school TBD-WVU (the latter as quid pro quo to West Virginia senator Joe Manchin spearheading federal NIL legislation Sankey and his SEC presidents desperately want in place)
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
For me, the TOC/NVC subplot is the best part of this thread.

We should all want TOC to be right because it’s better for us that we can get out of the ACC but there is a part of me that thinks it would be entertaining on the subplot side to watch TOC tell NVC why we’re stuck in the ACC until 2036 but it isn’t what he said or thinks it is. 😂
Click to expand...
You and @Angry Ibis
Blaming Spider-Man GIF
 
Wario Cristobum said:
[BGCOLOR=initial] [/BGCOLOR]
[BGCOLOR=initial]We're all just speculating about how many votes it takes to dissolve the ACC, void the GOR, etc. One thing we know for a fact is that it takes 12 teams to vote "yes" on expansion (adding Stanford and Cal, possibly SMU). Multiple reports say the straw poll indicated 11 teams would vote yes (including Miami, as I predicted since Rad was one of the biggest advocates for the GOR). So the acc is just one vote away from expansion, which I think would end the plan to get out of the GOR by dissolving the acc, and pretty much means no one is going anywhere. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]The surprise holdout is NC St. FSU and Clemson wanting to kill the acc makes sense because they know for sure they can go SEC, UNC is probably best positioned out of any ACC team as it will be a bidding war between SEC and B1G for them. My guess is NC St feels that the state legislature will force whichever conference takes UNC to also take NC St. [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial]While I think it's likely NC St will get to ride on UNCs coat tails into the P2, it's not a guarantee (see Oregon St). So I believe it's not out of the realm of possibility that NC St can be convinced to vote yes on expansion. It seems at least one expansion candidate thinks the winds have shifted in its favor [/BGCOLOR]


[BGCOLOR=initial](if I may preemptively address a certain group of posters that don't understand the difference between facts and opinions - this is not saying that Stanford is getting in, only that the school feels more confident they can get in- they could be completely wrong about the direction things are trending[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]). [/BGCOLOR]

[BGCOLOR=initial] Expansion is the most practical way to increase the payouts per team (as bad as the GOR deal is, it HAS to allow for some increase in payouts if the conference expands). IMO, after the vote for expansion, that's when the real intrigue will start because the acc will finally have some leverage in the negotiation with espn. [/BGCOLOR]
Click to expand...


Are you still going to maintain the falsehood that these are your "opinions"? That you speak "the truth"?

Because everything you just posted is a falsehood.

First, it is NOT speculation about how many votes it takes to dissolve the ACC. That issue is governed by North Carolina law, and it is a simple majority, which is 8 schools.

Second, nothing you say about "Rad being one of the biggest advocates for the GOR" means anything. That was over 10 years ago. Circumstances change. What Radakovich believed a decade ago does not control his actions today.

Third, NO, neither F$U nor Clemson "know" they can go to the SEC. F$U is certainly working hard to that end, but that is not a guarantee.

Fourth, NO, there will not be a "bidding war" for North Carolina.

Fifth, NO, "expansion" is NOT "the most practical way to increase the payouts per team. As has been documented extensively, the Pac 12 received a $30M per school offer from ESPN, which they turned down. Thus, the "fair market value" for Stanford and Cal will actually REDUCE the ACC's payout.

Sixth, there IS NO "GOR deal", and NO, the "GOR deal" does NOT allow for some increase in payouts if the conference expands, certainly not in the way that you describe or intend. If the ACC expanded with, say, FIU and FAU, then NO, there will be no "increase in payouts" on a per-school basis. In fact, the payouts would decline. And while you can choose to mock my selection of FIU and FAU, the fact remains, both Stanford and Cal were offered annual payouts that are LESS than the amounts currently being paid to ACC schools. Do the math.

Finally, NO, there will be no "increased leverage" with ESPN. Based on WHAT, exactly? Taking two teams whose BEST offer was $30M per year (ESPN offer that Pac 12 rejected) and whose most recent REJECTED offer was $20M per year (Apple TV)? Yeah, boy, that's soooommmme leverage...

Don't try to lecture anyone on "facts vs. opinion". In your case, BOTH your claimed facts and your delusional opinions are, actually, FALSE.
 
oso4lyf said:
Click to expand...



This ******* Tony Altidore character reminds me of guys who can't differentiate between numbers and percentages.

Yes, these are teams that got on OTA the most "number" of times, but that doesn't mean they got the best ratings.

A perfect example is right in the middle, with Oregon and Washington. YES, they got onto OTA the most "NUMBER" of times, because they had a lot of late games with ZERO competition from east-coast and midwest schools. But, those two schools had to take LESS THAN A HALF-SHARE for the Big 10 to consider them.

So, yeah...those teams "got onto" OTA broadcasts. But that's NOT the same as, you know, DID PEOPLE ACTUALLY WATCH THEM?

Look at that list again. Out of the 25 "Big Brands: TV Favorites", 5 of them are Pac 12 schools. Two had to take half-shares from the Big 10, and one of them is currently homeless.

Lies, **** lies, and statistics.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top