forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

TheOriginalCane said:
No matter who takes UM-F$U as a PAIR...whether it is the Big 10 or the SEC...it pretty much locks down Florida.

Obviously a Florida Big 3 would be MASSIVE for the SEC...

And Miami-F$U would allow the Big 10 to leapfrog the SEC in Florida, regardless of Flagship Blueblood Titletown trying to claim otherwise.

Eyeballs. And between a LOT of young 'uns beginning to root for UCF/USF/FAU at younger and younger ages (thus not "defaulting" to The Gator), you also have a UM-F$U pairing that is simply more compelling to most viewers, compared to UiF on its own.

Facts.
Click to expand...
BUT BUT BUT GERIATRIC SAID DUKE IS ABOVE MIAMI FOR BIG 10
 
Advertisement
mcnaire2004 said:
Conference realignment in college football has become a grotesque spectacle, a nauseating display of greed and shortsightedness that threatens the very essence of the sport we once held dear. What was once a pursuit of excellence on the field has devolved into a grotesque chess match among administrators, driven by avarice rather than a commitment to the student-athlete experience.

The importance of conference realignment should never be overstated, for it has the power to reshape the landscape of college football, leaving tradition trampled beneath the weight of dollar signs and the insatiable thirst for more lucrative TV deals. As conferences shuffle like a deck of cards, the once-cherished rivalries and regional pride crumble, casualties of a system that prioritizes the bottom line over the emotional connection fans have with their teams.

Passionate fan bases, whose lives revolve around the yearly pilgrimage to stadiums, find themselves betrayed by the very institutions they supported through thick and thin. Traditional matchups, ingrained in the fabric of college football lore, are sacrificed at the altar of profit margins. It's a betrayal of the sport's soul, a blatant disregard for the communal spirit that once made Saturdays in the fall sacred.

The domino effect of realignment extends beyond the playing field, infiltrating the very identities of universities. Historic programs are thrust into unfamiliar territories, severed from the roots that defined their athletic legacies. It's as if the architects of realignment are willfully erasing the rich history and tradition that made college football more than just a game—it was a cultural phenomenon.

In the name of "conference strength," administrators engage in a relentless pursuit of the next big television contract, turning their backs on the fans who filled stadiums and fueled the very viewership they now exploit. Loyalty is replaced by a cold calculus that calculates dollars and cents, forgetting that the heart and soul of college football lies in the passion and devotion of its supporters.

Moreover, the relentless pursuit of a so-called "super conference" threatens to create a chasm between the haves and have-nots, leaving smaller programs struggling to compete in a landscape where financial clout reigns supreme. The very essence of competition, where the underdog had a fighting chance, is eroded as the power dynamic tilts in favor of the select few with the biggest budgets and deepest pockets.

Conference realignment, in its current form, is nothing short of a betrayal of the spirit of college football. It's a betrayal of the student-athletes who signed up to represent their alma maters, only to find themselves pawns in a cynical game of revenue maximization. The anger that boils within fans is not just the product of resistance to change; it's a righteous fury against the desecration of a sport that once stood for something more than dollars and cents.

In conclusion, the importance of conference realignment in college football is not to be celebrated but mourned. It's a testament to the corrosive influence of greed and a stark reminder that, in the pursuit of financial gain, we risk sacrificing the very essence of what made college football a cherished institution. The time has come for fans, alumni, and true lovers of the sport to rise in indignation, demanding accountability and a return to the values that once made college football a beacon of tradition, pride, and community.
Click to expand...
You found chat gpt I see
 


The only Big 12 Teams on the list are Colorado - the Prime effect, and Utah.
Texas and Oklahoma are on the list but they're SEC now, and Oklahoma is ranked behind Miami, Duke, and Utah.

There are 5 ACC schools on the list:
FSU
Clemson
Miami
Duke
Louisville
 
Advertisement
Canesrule230 said:
I don't know how much these numbers can be trusted but being the 4th most watched with the type of year we had is not bad at all.

Click to expand...

Louisville and Duke with the ND bump.
Also, a lot of people were curious about the ACCCG. Not just uL and fSU fans.
 
NJshoreCane said:
Louisville and Duke with the ND bump.
Click to expand...


Something seems off about that guy's numbers, this one allegedly averages Nielsen ratings and seems to make more sense. Our numbers are for sure off... we had at least 4M viewers against FSU, and around that for ATM.
For us to average 1.3M would mean that we had under 1M for the remaining 10 games, which can't be right
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Miami should join that lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Serious question as I am certainly not a lawyer... if FSU wins, that would open the door for all teams in the ACC, right? I can't imagine they would be arguing that they specifically shouldn't be bound to it. So do we think that FSU would be more likely to win if Miami joined? If not, why not let FSU fight it out, save some money, save good will with the ACC (theoretically) if it fails and reap the rewards if they succeed.

I know that you will often see multiple states join lawsuits together, so maybe there is some legitimate reason to join, just curious for anyone that has better knowledge than me.
 
Advertisement
DamnLiesAndStatistics said:


Something seems off about that guy's numbers, this one allegedly averages Nielsen ratings and seems to make more sense. Our numbers are for sure off... we had at least 4M viewers against FSU, and around that for ATM.
For us to average 1.3M would mean that we had under 1M for the remaining 10 games, which can't be right
Click to expand...

ACC Network isn’t Nielsen rated so half our schedule “doesn’t count.” It’s too close to the holidays for me to do math, but I’d guess the 353K viewers for the Temple game on ESPN2 dragged down the number.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2023 season. Will be updated as the season progresses, typically on Tuesdays (Wednesdays in holiday weeks). College football
www.sportsmediawatch.com www.sportsmediawatch.com
 
Shogungts said:
Serious question as I am certainly not a lawyer... if FSU wins, that would open the door for all teams in the ACC, right? I can't imagine they would be arguing that they specifically shouldn't be bound to it. So do we think that FSU would be more likely to win if Miami joined? If not, why not let FSU fight it out, save some money, save good will with the ACC (theoretically) if it fails and reap the rewards if they succeed.

I know that you will often see multiple states join lawsuits together, so maybe there is some legitimate reason to join, just curious for anyone that has better knowledge than me.
Click to expand...


A few things.

First, yes, F$U is seeking a declaratory judgment. But that would apply to them. IF IF IF someone else wanted to use that as precedent, fine, but some of the non-lawyers can misunderstand "precedent". It's one thing to have "legal precedent", such as a Supreme Court case that says, in the future, all police officers have to give a "Miranda" warning to suspects. But it's another thing to have a factual precedent. Because F$U is not going to court to "set the ACC free", they are going to court FOR THEMSELVES. So a win in court is not some sort of self-executing document where SUDDENLY we are all free to exit.

At best, we would then have to go to court and try to cite the F$U case and why it should apply TO US. And that takes time. And money. I'm not sure where this concept of "let F$U do all the heavy lifting" comes from. It's nothing personal, but that's just a lazy legal strategy, and I don't see where any "saved goodwill with the ACC" comes in either, as the ACC is fully aware of the complaints and dissatisfaction.

Second, I think you have a much more credible lawsuit if MULTIPLE schools go into court to explain how the GOR was misexplained, misapplied, and used as an IMPROPER secondary penalty to exiting the league, rather than to let ONE school make a solo argument. No matter who anyone thinks the "parties" are, whoever opposes F$U's exit is going to cross-examine F$U to make it seem like their primary motivation NOW is the CFP snub. A broader attack, involving multiple schools, blunts that kind of cross-examination by the defense.

When you analyze this, you have to ask...right now, F$U is asking the court for a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. They want a court to declare "yeah, this GOR is crap, you're out of it, F$U". And what is interesting is WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT?

It's either the ACC or ESPN. And either party (or both) has issues to overcome.

If it's the ACC, then why are they fighting to defend the GOR? After all, a GOR "should" only be an assignment mechanism for having multiple parties assign whatever things are "necessary" so that an organizational group can go out and negotiate a contract that benefits all of the relevant parties. If the ACC tries to argue "oh, but you owe us $50M a year for 10 years", then you will come perilously close to an impermissible SECOND exit penalty. Because courts have been pretty clear that you can't use OTHER documents to double or triple or otherwise increase an ALREADY AGREED UPON exit fee contained in the organizational documents themselves. And why should the ACC care? If one school leaves, and ACC pays less, then you GIVE LESS. Because the school that left IS GONE. Why should there even BE a penalty for exiting a GOR, at least as the penalty is structured? This should ALWAYS have been a "liquidated damages" clause, where the penalty was agreed upon in advance. The vagueness of how much a school owes to EXIT THE GOR is one of the inherent weaknesses of a GOR (as the ACC's GOR is currently structured). And don't even get me started on the GOR "extension" document. Anyhow, I've already discussed those issues previously.

If it's ESPN, then why the **** are they fighting to defend the GOR? They already purchased the bundle of rights from the ACC. Any expansion (more teams) or contraction (fewer teams) is most likely DUPLICATE covered by the TV contract itself. Thus, if after 10 years, the "new ACC" looks a lot different from the "OG ACC", then ESPN has plenty of EXISTING mechanisms for increasing or decreasing the payout to the ACC. So why should they ALSO withhold money from a school under the terms of the GOR? That would already happen under the TV contract. ESPN is not about to be "stuck" paying the newer/crappier ACC for the "original contract terms", and then having to go back to court to claw back the overpay. IT'S ALREADY CONTEMPLATED. In the TV contract.

So F$U's strategy is good and proper. They are asking a court to DECLARE that the GOR does not bind them. Smart. No argument over "damages" or "breach" (not directly, at least at the outset).

I simply think that you make a STRONGER argument for declaratory judgment when you have MULTIPLE schools making the same argument, that way the court can't view it as "one bitter party out of 15".
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Miami should join that lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Why join? Let them pay all the bills and get the same result for you if they win

It’s going to get filed in Florida. They will win. It will get appealed to Florida Supreme Court where they will win. Then the real trial begins if it gets into the fed system on appeal
 
Advertisement
Back
Top