forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Advertisement
Schools trying to leave the ACC:

1692322444248.jpeg
 
Cane & Able said:
Condi is pushing/pressuring/demanding for ND to join the ACC with Cal and Stanford and 1 other college. behind the scenes right now are incredible.

...I would not bet against Condi..
Click to expand...


Look, @Cane & Able , I respect your knowledge of the Big 10 and all of the machinations that have been going on.

And I'm not saying that Condi isn't making an effort.

But I will absolutely bet against her. She is bright and talented, and also vastly overrated in this arena. And she has no leverage. Zero.

You've been telling everyone how non-AAU F$U and Clemson are Big 10 1A and 1B due to TV viewership and Fox/CBS/NBC pulling the strings. Fine, I'll play along for the moment.

First, we have Stanford and Cal. ESPN only thought that the Pac 12 was worth $30M per school, and Stanford-Cal were mid-value Pac 12 schools anyhow, and arguably in the bottom 4. Apple TV offered the Pac 12 only $20M per school. And when the Big 12 had the CHANCE to take any additional Pac 12 schools, Oregon and Washington (both more valuable than Stanford and Cal) were only worth $30M each. So that means that by ALL available metrics, ALL available "willing seller/willing buyer" situations (you know, the process that determines FMV), we can set the value of Stanford and Cal at between $20M and $30M per year. Which would REDUCE the average payout of all ACC schools, not increase it.

Second, we have ND. Now, $65M per year from football is a nice number. But, again, given that the ACC is paying around $35M per school, you would need for two things to be true: (a) ND is WILLING to give away $28M of its $30M in monetary advantage to the ACC, simply to get what it basically already has, which is "games against ACC opponents"; and (b) if ND gives up $28M to (presumably) 14 existing ACC schools (momentarily setting aside the REDUCTION in payments to the ACC due to the additions of Stanford and Cal), then that means each ACC school would get...wait for it...an extra $2M per year by bringing ND into the fold. Annnnnnd...we are currently running behind the Big 10 by $25M per year. Not sure that this closes the gap.

Third, we have this miraculous "fourth school". Let's say it's SMU. Why? How? In what bizarre financial model does SMU "change the game", let alone fix any of the two preceding points (one where Stanford-Cal REDUCE the ACC payouts, the other where ND only increases the ACC payouts by $2M per school).

Look, you have spent countless hours telling us how the Big 10 is betting big on the "people want to see great matchups" promise. Now you are trying to convince us that new matchups involving Stanford and Cal and ND (maybe) and SMU will completely transform the game and lead to the ACC making anywhere close to Big 10 money? Yeah, this doesn't sound like anything you've said for months.

Now, even if we want to squeeze a bit of extra juice out...

---More conference games? So, if we JUUUUUST play 10 conference games, suddenly ESPN will back up the Brinks truck? This does not sound anywhere close to the truth, not when the 14 or 15 team ACC (without the powerhouses of Stanford, Cal, and SMU) are doing deals with The CW.

---OTA vs. streaming? You've spent months telling us how OTA ain't dead yet, and it's the primary driver, meanwhile we are supposed to believe "thar's gold in them there streaming hills" when ESPN is desperate to put more and more games on the ol' Plus-O, not to mention the fact that they LOVE the SEC far more than the ACC.

---Travel and regions? In a time when the SEC is slavishly holding to its tight-tight footprint, and the Big 10 finally caved to taking FOUR teams from the Pacific states, somehow we are supposed to believe that "only" two California teams (in probably the least sports-interested MSA in Cali) are going to be a revenue driver? And, look, I can wrap my head around people in the east having the willingness to stay up past midnight on a Saturday to watch USC or UCLA, but I don't think you've factored in the concept that NOBODY in California is going to be getting up at 9 am to watch the vast majority of the east-coast ACC teams play noon EST games. Maybe in Vegas/Reno, and I've actually watched some noon Miami games out there in the casinos. But come on, now...

And finally, let's sum this up. WHY would ND and the rest of the ACC do ANYTHING that Condoleezza Rice asks? Because she's a great debater? Because she has naked photos of certain ACC presidents? Look, I realize she's done some admirable things in the political arena, and has parlayed that into a grossly undeserved role with the CFP selection committee. But if you're trying to convince us that a little Condi-jawing will FINALLY convince ND to give up its football independence after decades of EVERY OTHER LOGICAL ARGUMENT leading to failure...

Well, choose to believe what you want. You're a good guy with fantastic information. You've given me a lot of new things to consider, such as the demographic shifts within the United States, and the fact that not every TV sports viewer is some 17-year-old cable-cutter who knows how to stream games on dark-net websites.

But you're also accustomed to dealing with the smarter university presidents and conference commissioners. You haven't spent enough time dealing with the morons and no-visionaries of the ACC.

Look, the ACC has backed itself into a corner. There are no financial avenues forward that will allow us to match the Big 10/SEC levels of cash-money. So, who knows, maybe some of our idiot ACC presidents like Julio Frenk will be bamboozled into the fools' gold of Stanford-Cal. But if we keep falling for this banana in the tailpipe, then we will blow our chance. The Big 10 will wake up and realize that USF is an AAU school in a market that ACTUALLY watches football rabidly (unlike the SF Bay Area). And then schools like F$U and Clemson and Miami will truly be ****-out-of-luck.

I respectfully decline Wesley Snipes' advice, and I bet against Condoleezza Rice in this situation.
 
RVACane said:
She’s a powerful, influential and highly capable person. I would never underestimate Condoleeza Rice on a mission.
Click to expand...
I’m not diminishing her abilities, but how is one person that has no connection at Notre Dame or half of the schools going to suddenly change all of their trajectory’s and solve the dollars issue just to help her own selfish interests in one.
 
Advertisement
Ispyin said:
I’m not diminishing her abilities, but how is one person that has no connection at Notre Dame or half of the schools going to suddenly change all of their trajectory’s and solve the dollars issue just to help her own selfish interests in one.
Click to expand...
She might be able to get different parties to agree to different things. I don’t know what cards she’s holding. Just saying she’s not someone to underestimate or take lightly. Is she doing this on her own or did Stanford hire her?
 
Ispyin said:
I’m not diminishing her abilities, but how is one person that has no connection at Notre Dame or half of the schools going to suddenly change all of their trajectory’s and solve the dollars issue just to help her own selfish interests in one.
Click to expand...
She has a Master's degree from ND, has spoken there, and was on their Board of Trustees from 1994 - 2001. Not that it matters much, it is more than likely not happening. However, never say never in this realignment crap. Maybe she convinces ND to put their money where their mouth is and truly support getting these "top educational institutions" into the ACC and not just provide their typical lip service.
 
RVACane said:
She might be able to get different parties to agree to different things. I don’t know what cards she’s holding. Just saying she’s not someone to underestimate or take lightly. Is she doing this on her own or did Stanford hire her?
Click to expand...
Condi has extensive connections to ND and, I should add, is deeply wired in to the NFL Commissioner's Office and several of the Ownership Groups, most of whom want stability in College Football. I suspect that the NFL would prefer the Status Quo at this time and would rather not lose market share to an increasingly semi-professional "NCAA".

This has very little to do with saving the clowntards down on Tobacco Road, I suspect.
 
RVACane said:
She might be able to get different parties to agree to different things. I don’t know what cards she’s holding. Just saying she’s not someone to underestimate or take lightly. Is she doing this on her own or did Stanford hire her?
Click to expand...


I said it in a longer post, so I'll say it again in a shorter post.

After DECADES of Notre Dame resisting the move from "Independent" to "conference member", and ten$ of million$ of inducement$, all it will take for ND to finally make the change is a l'il ol' conversation with Condi?

Yeah, not happ'n, cap'n.

She's got less than zero leverage.
 
Advertisement
section9 said:
Condi has extensive connections to ND and, I should add, is deeply wired in to the NFL Commissioner's Office and several of the Ownership Groups, most of whom want stability in College Football. I suspect that the NFL would prefer the Status Quo at this time and would rather not lose market share to an increasingly semi-professional "NCAA".

This has very little to do with saving the clowntards down on Tobacco Road, I suspect.
Click to expand...


"Losing market share" because some NCAA teams change conferences?

Are we talking about the same all-powerful NFL that did a fat lot of nothing when Texas and Oklahoma and USC and UCLA and Oregon and Washington changed conferences? But now they are going to suddenly give a **** about Stanford and Cal?

OK...whatever...
 
RVACane said:
She might be able to get different parties to agree to different things. I don’t know what cards she’s holding. Just saying she’s not someone to underestimate or take lightly. Is she doing this on her own or did Stanford hire her?
Click to expand...

I'll never forget when Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell got traded for Eminem in the 2004 Racial Draft. The Blacks absolutely robbed the Whites on that one. That might top Ditka trading every draft pick (plus a 1st and 3rd rounder from the following year) for Ricky Williams.
 
CaneinBroward said:
She has a Master's degree from ND, has spoken there, and was on their Board of Trustees from 1994 - 2001. Not that it matters much, it is more than likely not happening. However, never say never in this realignment crap. Maybe she convinces ND to put their money where their mouth is and truly support getting these "top educational institutions" into the ACC and not just provide their typical lip service.
Click to expand...
Fine then she should’ve done that weeks ago when they were better teams in the Pac 12 to also join along

She’s $30 million short and a year and two months late
 
section9 said:
Condi has extensive connections to ND and, I should add, is deeply wired in to the NFL Commissioner's Office and several of the Ownership Groups, most of whom want stability in College Football. I suspect that the NFL would prefer the Status Quo at this time and would rather not lose market share to an increasingly semi-professional "NCAA".

This has very little to do with saving the clowntards down on Tobacco Road, I suspect.
Click to expand...
Great, so does she have 35 million extra per Florida State Clemson Miami and whoever because she got ESPN to also agree if not she can GTFOH
 
Advertisement
section9 said:
Condi has extensive connections to ND and, I should add, is deeply wired in to the NFL Commissioner's Office and several of the Ownership Groups, most of whom want stability in College Football. I suspect that the NFL would prefer the Status Quo at this time and would rather not lose market share to an increasingly semi-professional "NCAA".

This has very little to do with saving the clowntards down on Tobacco Road, I suspect.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, the NFL has zero to do with any of this. They are not worried about losing "market share" to college football. They purposely schedule no games on Saturdays until late in the season when the college championship games are over and colleges don't play Sunday football.

Condi is doing this solely for the purpose of trying to keep Stanford as relevant as possible in college football.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, @Cane & Able , I respect your knowledge of the Big 10 and all of the machinations that have been going on.

And I'm not saying that Condi isn't making an effort.

But I will absolutely bet against her. She is bright and talented, and also vastly overrated in this arena. And she has no leverage. Zero.

You've been telling everyone how non-AAU F$U and Clemson are Big 10 1A and 1B due to TV viewership and Fox/CBS/NBC pulling the strings. Fine, I'll play along for the moment.

First, we have Stanford and Cal. ESPN only thought that the Pac 12 was worth $30M per school, and Stanford-Cal were mid-value Pac 12 schools anyhow, and arguably in the bottom 4. Apple TV offered the Pac 12 only $20M per school. And when the Big 12 had the CHANCE to take any additional Pac 12 schools, Oregon and Washington (both more valuable than Stanford and Cal) were only worth $30M each. So that means that by ALL available metrics, ALL available "willing seller/willing buyer" situations (you know, the process that determines FMV), we can set the value of Stanford and Cal at between $20M and $30M per year. Which would REDUCE the average payout of all ACC schools, not increase it.

Second, we have ND. Now, $65M per year from football is a nice number. But, again, given that the ACC is paying around $35M per school, you would need for two things to be true: (a) ND is WILLING to give away $28M of its $30M in monetary advantage to the ACC, simply to get what it basically already has, which is "games against ACC opponents"; and (b) if ND gives up $28M to (presumably) 14 existing ACC schools (momentarily setting aside the REDUCTION in payments to the ACC due to the additions of Stanford and Cal), then that means each ACC school would get...wait for it...an extra $2M per year by bringing ND into the fold. Annnnnnd...we are currently running behind the Big 10 by $25M per year. Not sure that this closes the gap.

Third, we have this miraculous "fourth school". Let's say it's SMU. Why? How? In what bizarre financial model does SMU "change the game", let alone fix any of the two preceding points (one where Stanford-Cal REDUCE the ACC payouts, the other where ND only increases the ACC payouts by $2M per school).

Look, you have spent countless hours telling us how the Big 10 is betting big on the "people want to see great matchups" promise. Now you are trying to convince us that new matchups involving Stanford and Cal and ND (maybe) and SMU will completely transform the game and lead to the ACC making anywhere close to Big 10 money? Yeah, this doesn't sound like anything you've said for months.

Now, even if we want to squeeze a bit of extra juice out...

---More conference games? So, if we JUUUUUST play 10 conference games, suddenly ESPN will back up the Brinks truck? This does not sound anywhere close to the truth, not when the 14 or 15 team ACC (without the powerhouses of Stanford, Cal, and SMU) are doing deals with The CW.

---OTA vs. streaming? You've spent months telling us how OTA ain't dead yet, and it's the primary driver, meanwhile we are supposed to believe "thar's gold in them there streaming hills" when ESPN is desperate to put more and more games on the ol' Plus-O, not to mention the fact that they LOVE the SEC far more than the ACC.

---Travel and regions? In a time when the SEC is slavishly holding to its tight-tight footprint, and the Big 10 finally caved to taking FOUR teams from the Pacific states, somehow we are supposed to believe that "only" two California teams (in probably the least sports-interested MSA in Cali) are going to be a revenue driver? And, look, I can wrap my head around people in the east having the willingness to stay up past midnight on a Saturday to watch USC or UCLA, but I don't think you've factored in the concept that NOBODY in California is going to be getting up at 9 am to watch the vast majority of the east-coast ACC teams play noon EST games. Maybe in Vegas/Reno, and I've actually watched some noon Miami games out there in the casinos. But come on, now...

And finally, let's sum this up. WHY would ND and the rest of the ACC do ANYTHING that Condoleezza Rice asks? Because she's a great debater? Because she has naked photos of certain ACC presidents? Look, I realize she's done some admirable things in the political arena, and has parlayed that into a grossly undeserved role with the CFP selection committee. But if you're trying to convince us that a little Condi-jawing will FINALLY convince ND to give up its football independence after decades of EVERY OTHER LOGICAL ARGUMENT leading to failure...

Well, choose to believe what you want. You're a good guy with fantastic information. You've given me a lot of new things to consider, such as the demographic shifts within the United States, and the fact that not every TV sports viewer is some 17-year-old cable-cutter who knows how to stream games on dark-net websites.

But you're also accustomed to dealing with the smarter university presidents and conference commissioners. You haven't spent enough time dealing with the morons and no-visionaries of the ACC.

Look, the ACC has backed itself into a corner. There are no financial avenues forward that will allow us to match the Big 10/SEC levels of cash-money. So, who knows, maybe some of our idiot ACC presidents like Julio Frenk will be bamboozled into the fools' gold of Stanford-Cal. But if we keep falling for this banana in the tailpipe, then we will blow our chance. The Big 10 will wake up and realize that USF is an AAU school in a market that ACTUALLY watches football rabidly (unlike the SF Bay Area). And then schools like F$U and Clemson and Miami will truly be ****-out-of-luck.

I respectfully decline Wesley Snipes' advice, and I bet against Condoleezza Rice in this situation.
Click to expand...
He has been all over the **** place for a while now.
 
I am with TOC, ND always looks out for their own @ss and they are not losing **** near $30M to join the ACC to do Stanford and Cal favors.

TOC can also correct me if I am wrong. I believe they need 12 of 15 votes to add them and we already know FSU, UNC and Miami (IMO behind closed doors not in public light) are likely no votes and I believe they get the 4th from a program unnamed who has already had conversations from other conferences behind the scenes. I don't believe all the BS released to the media from programs with agendas. In other words, I believe the teams mentioned and amount of votes they supposedly got during the supposed previous vote to add them was BS as well.

People can not forget that BS information galore has been released to the media due to agendas or to influence things to benefit specific programs. I am no lawyer, don't know anybody and have no connections, but I am an expert at screening BS and there is a whole lot of that out there.

I also think some dudes are here rooting to be right vs hoping the program can GTFO of this **** conference so it doesn't turn into a permanent 2nd to 3rd rate program. That is JMO which means nothing, but need to read info from those who are so they can and come to conclusions on their own. We also have trolls on this site and we know they have agendas as well.
 
Advertisement
TIFWIW- no idea on their “sauces” but interesting Convo around the 4 min mark

TL:DR- may be an actual vote tomorrow. “Miami is school no one wants to talk about … but our sources have Miami against expansion.”

Didn’t watch whole thing yet so watcher beware

 
Last edited:
Ispyin said:
TIFWIW- no idea on their “sauces” but interesting Convo around the 4 min mark

TL:DR- may be an actual vote tomorrow. “Miami is school no one wants to talk about … but our sources have Miami against expansion.”

Didn’t watch whole thing yet so watcher beware

Click to expand...

Jesus
 
Advertisement
Back
Top