forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

TheOriginalCane said:
Sir, you are not a liar.

And, technically, if Cali has argued all the sides of a debate, just on different days, he is not a liar either.

Just a dishonest bull****ter.

When I get home from Cards-Braves, I’ll try to find some of his old adidas advocacy. I’m not the only one who is tired of Cali’s ever-changing stories, @Rellyrell has had enough of Cali too.
Click to expand...
Yeah I could absolutely be mistaken but I’m not lying. Lying means there’s an element of intent involved and there’s no intent here that could ever be proven. I get it though, I’m not dealing with a person of sane brain.
 
Calinative said:
Hahahaha

I’d love to hear the “all sides” of the Adidas vs Nike debate I have been on.

I’d like proof with quotes and context included. Have fun.
Click to expand...
I am close enough. I think what I saw was you arguing to go with adidas based on straight $ offer while either myself or others were saying that there’s more to consider, like uniform quality, perception for recruiting and other benefits of Nike. If this wasn’t you then I’m out.
 
RVACane said:
You definitely argue the opposite of whatever the prevailing views are plenty so I would expect to see defense of Adidas. It’s not exactly an outlandish thought.
Click to expand...
Another lie lol, I argue my genuine opinion and will defend it... as I'm pretty sure I've stated directly to you previously. That Wacky tobaccy got ya
1783048065358.png


edit, oh and Regarding if you're lying or not... well I've only said the exact same thing regarding Adidas vs Nike for like 5 years now... and your first statement I replied to you literally said:
I forgot he’s an Adidas over Nike proponent.
Click to expand...
which is a false statement. lol.
It's okay, you've called me a liar plenty of times.... in situations I absolutely wasnt lol.

Don't worry on my liar rankings, you are so far below TOC, you're just outside the George Washington tier. Maybe you can be in the Clinton tier, where the lie really wasn't a big deal lol
 
Last edited:
Calinative said:
Another lie lol, I argue my genuine opinion and will defend it... as I'm pretty sure I've stated directly to you previously. That Wacky tobaccy got ya
View attachment 366714

edit, oh and Regarding if you're lying or not... well I've only said the exact same thing regarding Adidas vs Nike for like 5 years now... and your first statement I replied to you literally said:

which is a false statement. lol.
It's okay, you've called me a liar plenty of times.... in situations I absolutely wasnt lol.

Don't worry on my liar rankings, you are so far below TOC, you're just outside the George Washington tier. Maybe you can be in the Clinton tier, where the lie really wasn't a big deal lol
Click to expand...
🤣 im not mad. I remember a discussion but it wasn’t as I thought. You didn’t say adidas over Nike for no reason like you love adidas, it was that you would go with Adidas for more money on the offer and i thought there’s more to consider like recruiting impact, image/perception. Still different than what I thought I remembered. Sorry man, we’d make different choices but you are correct more so than I am. The weed has an impact man it really does.
 
RVACane said:
Ok. This thread has been going on for 4 years and it’s been a cluster but I realize that there’s stuff in the works and it does seem like something is going on.
Click to expand...
Well the congressional action seems like it could light a fire under everyones *** to do is asap.

Clearly USC+UCLA and Texas+OU started it all. The Pac12 collapsing with oregon+UW leaving screwed us in terms of timing (and that they accepted non full distributions), along with our bat**** insane GOR.

The Clemson and FSU lawsuit was great for us as it set the exact path out of the ACC with Timing+Cost, with it basically guaranteeing that 2030 was the latest it would happen. Howeever that lawsuit also changed the ACC payout structure to basically have actually made it perfectly fine for us to stay for the time being (since its rating+results based, and we are currently dominant). Unfortunately the CFP changing its payout structure beginning this season, looks like it may significantly cut into that benefit (how we got an extra $20M for last yrs playoff run). But we will still get a higher % still... Maybe like still $10-$20M less than in B1G/SEC? Which is bad, but probably not "worth it" to pay the ACC buyout to leave YET.... UNLESS the long-term downsides would become too large - Which is what this new law that could pass potentially would do.

Like It may financially be better off staying in ACC another like 2 years and then exiting due to buyout cost and depending what % distribution we would receive from B1G.... but if whatever this law they are trying to pass would prohibit us from making that move in the future.... well it'd mean long term it's better to just eat the cost now.
 
Last edited:
Calinative said:
Well the congressional action seems like it could light a fire under everyones *** to do is asap.

Clearly the US+UCLA and Texas+OU started it all. The Pac12 collapsing with oregon+UW leaving screwed us in terms of timing (and that they accepted non full distributions), along with our bat**** insane GOR.

The Clemson and FSU lawsuit was great for us as it set the exact path out of the ACC with Timing+Cost, with it basically guaranteeing that 2030 was the latest it would happen. Howeever that lawsuit also changed the ACC payout structure to basically have actually made it perfectly fine for us to stay for the time being (since its rating+results based, and we are currently dominant). Unfortunately the CFP changing its payout structure beginning this season, looks like it may significantly cut into that benefit (how we got an extra $20M for last yrs playoff run). But we will still get a higher % still... Maybe like still $10-$20M less than in B1G/SEC? Which is bad, but probably not "worth it" to pay the ACC buyout to leave YET.... UNLESS the long-term downsides would become too large - Which is what this new law that could pass potentially would do.

Like It may financially be better off staying in ACC another like 2 years and then exiting due to buyout cost and depending what % distribution we would receive from B1G.... but if whatever this law they are trying to pass would prohibit us from making that move in the future.... well it'd mean long term it's better to just eat the cost now.
Click to expand...
Im sure we’d get like a half share if we go there while they are still in their existing tv deal but when it’s up we’d be at full share. When is their tv deal up?
 
RVACane said:
Im sure we’d get like a half share if we go there while they are still in their existing tv deal but when it’s up we’d be at full share. When is their tv deal up?
Click to expand...
- B1G goes through the 2029 football season (extension 2030).... which aligns with ND's NBC contract running through the 2029 football season ($50M/yr, but they also receive like $20M/yr from ACC for non football sports). The important thing to note is the B1G payout for like the 2024 football season was almost $76M/school (Ohio St got like $91M for winning champ that yr)...

- B12 goes through the 2030 football season. Payout for 2024 football season was $39M/school.

- SEC goes through 2033. Their payout for 2024 football season was like $72M/school.

- ACC goes through 2035 (highway ******* robbery!). To leave 2027 football season (as in playing in the B1G next yr) it costs $147M. Leave 28 costs $129M. Leave 29 costs $111M. Leave 2030 costs $93M. 2031-2035 costs $75M. However it also has a clause that if the ACC full membership drops below 15, it triggers ESPNs right to renegotiate and significantly lower it's payouts. Payout for 2024 football season was $47M/school... I wonder if this would then effect these exit fees? Like at that point wouldn't it be best to be the team that left the conference after it dropped to 14 full members (at least youd have a pretty valid lawsuit to pay reduced exit fee given substantially reducesed conference value)? But the reality is that would mean 4 teams already left, so unlikely to be one of the top brands.... Though If like SEC got UNC+UVA asap, and then like FSU+Clemson announced out? Would be an interesting consideration lol.....

The problem is say we leave for the 2027 football season. That costs us $147M exit fee. B1G full distribution is likely >$80M/yr. Maybe as much as $100M/yr (if we want to be generous). USC and UCLA got 100% shares. Oregon and UW got 50-60% shares. However we are expected to receive like $50M/yr from the ACC (well for 2025 season we will receive closer to $70M!), maybe $60M/yr is reasonable estimate for ACC payouts 2027-2029? So the difference between full B1G v ACC share is lets say $40M/yr. That means from 2027-2029, it'd be a $120M increase in revenue for us.... Well It costs $147M to leave. So NET thats -$27M to join B1G at FULL SHARE starting 2027 season (or -$9M/yr). This is really not so bad... However If only 50-60% share through 2029, this brings the cost to -$140M at best... Which would be very bad.... But again USC and UCLA DID get full shares. Oregon and UW had no alternative really. I think it's likely we'd be closer to how USC got treated here... At least I really ******* hope so.

All that to say, it basically only really makes sense to leave asap IF we get Full Shares. And this is why I said with the ACC Success Initiative and increased payouts it actually doesn't even make financial sense to leave before 2030 when the B1G is up for renegotiation and we could immediately get full shares no matter what. The only reason it can make sense is to eat that cost because congress/law would not allow you to leave at all after 2029....

Honestly before CFP changed the payout, it objectively made CLEAR financial sense for us to stay ACC through 2028 at Minimum tbh... Now with the new change, we will have to see. If we can get full shares from B1G immediately, I'd prefer to leave asap. No need to risk anything. Get in asap, eat $10M at most or whatever it'd be....
 
Last edited:
Calinative said:
- B1G goes through the 2029 football season (extension 2030).... which aligns with ND's NBC contract running through the 2029 football season ($50M/yr, but they also receive like $20M/yr from ACC for non football sports). The important thing to note is the B1G payout for like the 2024 football season was almost $76M/school (Ohio St got like $91M for winning champ that yr)...

- B12 goes through the 2030 football season. Payout for 2024 football season was $39M/school.

- SEC goes through 2033. Their payout for 2024 football season was like $72M/school.

- ACC goes through 2035 (highway ******* robbery!). To leave 2027 football season (as in playing in the B1G next yr) it costs $147M. Leave 28 costs $129M. Leave 29 costs $111M. Leave 2030 costs $93M. 2031-2035 costs $75M. However it also has a clause that if the ACC full membership drops below 15, it triggers ESPNs right to renegotiate and significantly lower it's payouts. Payout for 2024 football season was $47M/school... I wonder if this would then effect these exit fees? Like at that point wouldn't it be best to be the team that left the conference after it dropped to 14 full members (at least youd have a pretty valid lawsuit to pay reduced exit fee given substantially reducesed conference value)? But the reality is that would mean 4 teams already left, so unlikely to be one of the top brands.... Though If like SEC got UNC+UVA asap, and then like FSU+Clemson announced out? Would be an interesting consideration lol.....

The problem is say we leave for the 2027 football season. That costs us $147M exit fee. B1G full distribution is likely >$80M/yr. Maybe as much as $100M/yr (if we want to be generous). USC and UCLA got 100% shares. Oregon and UW got 50-60% shares. However we are expected to receive like $50M/yr from the ACC (well for 2025 season we will receive closer to $70M!), maybe $60M/yr is reasonable estimate for ACC payouts 2027-2029? So the difference between full B1G v ACC share is lets say $40M/yr. That means from 2027-2029, it'd be a $120M increase in revenue for us.... Well It costs $147M to leave. So NET thats -$27M to join B1G at FULL SHARE starting 2027 season (or -$9M/yr). This is really not so bad... However If only 50-60% share through 2029, this brings the cost to -$140M at best... Which would be very bad.... But again USC and UCLA DID get full shares. Oregon and UW had no alternative really. I think it's likely we'd be closer to how USC got treated here... At least I really ******* hope so.

All that to say, it basically only really makes sense to leave asap IF we get Full Shares. And this is why I said with the ACC Success Initiative and increased payouts it actually doesn't even make financial sense to leave before 2030 when the B1G is up for renegotiation and we could immediately get full shares no matter what. The only reason it can make sense is to eat that cost because congress/law would not allow you to leave at all after 2029....

Honestly before CFP changed the payout, it objectively made CLEAR financial sense for us to stay ACC through 2028 at Minimum tbh... Now with the new change, we will have to see. If we can get full shares from B1G immediately, I'd prefer to leave asap. No need to risk anything. Get in asap, eat $10M at most or whatever it'd be....
Click to expand...
I think the full shares will come when the tv deal starts again, however, if Miami and like 3-5 others are going to the B1G I could see the B1G renegotiating the tv deal to extend with new teams in it and in that situation we could get a full share immediately.

Also, and I’m sure you guys talk about it in here, but the research funding we would be looking at, if it’s coming sooner, that’s also money to the school so we could probably pay whatever buyout with that as a consideration. The gross money to the school in the B1G is going to be way more than we’d see in any other conference, including the SEC, because of the research grants. I get why we would do it even though I hate B1G football.
 
RVACane said:
I think the full shares will come when the tv deal starts again, however, if Miami and like 3-5 others are going to the B1G I could see the B1G renegotiating the tv deal to extend with new teams in it and on that situation we could get a full shares immediately.

Also, and I’m sure you guys talk about it in here, but the research funding we would be looking at , if it’s coming sooner, I that’s also money to the school so we could probably pay whatever buyout with that as a consideration. The gross money to the school in the B1G is going to be way more than we’d see in any other conference, including the SEC, because of the research grants. I get why we would do it even though I hate B1G football.
Click to expand...
I hate Big 10 football too, but I keep telling myself that by the time we join, “Big 10 football” is going to be so different. It will have four Pac 10 teams, plus us and a couple other teams maybe, plus Maryland and Rutgers still don’t feel like Big 10 teams. So it’s getting diluted. That old school style of play will hopefully go away and maybe they’ll also be forced to adapt.
 
caneingville said:
I hate Big 10 football too, but I keep telling myself that by the time we join, “Big 10 football” is going to be so different. It will have four Pac 10 teams, plus us and a couple other teams maybe, plus Maryland and Rutgers still don’t feel like Big 10 teams. So it’s getting diluted. That old school style of play will hopefully go away and maybe they’ll also be forced to adapt.
Click to expand...
It’s a legit conference. I hope we don’t have the same refereeing issues we have in the ACC. There’s some *****-made programs in the B1G starting with Wisconsin.
 
RVACane said:
It’s a legit conference. I hope we don’t have the same refereeing issues we have in the ACC. There’s some *****-made programs in the B1G starting with Wisconsin.
Click to expand...
I’ve already accepted that no matter where we go, we’re going to have those issues.

Look what happened in the Ole Miss game. No reason Lucas should have gotten that targeting call and missed the first half of the natty. But Big 10 refs gonna Big 10 ref.
 
Calinative said:
- B1G goes through the 2029 football season (extension 2030).... which aligns with ND's NBC contract running through the 2029 football season ($50M/yr, but they also receive like $20M/yr from ACC for non football sports). The important thing to note is the B1G payout for like the 2024 football season was almost $76M/school (Ohio St got like $91M for winning champ that yr)...

- B12 goes through the 2030 football season. Payout for 2024 football season was $39M/school.

- SEC goes through 2033. Their payout for 2024 football season was like $72M/school.

- ACC goes through 2035 (highway ******* robbery!). To leave 2027 football season (as in playing in the B1G next yr) it costs $147M. Leave 28 costs $129M. Leave 29 costs $111M. Leave 2030 costs $93M. 2031-2035 costs $75M. However it also has a clause that if the ACC full membership drops below 15, it triggers ESPNs right to renegotiate and significantly lower it's payouts. Payout for 2024 football season was $47M/school... I wonder if this would then effect these exit fees? Like at that point wouldn't it be best to be the team that left the conference after it dropped to 14 full members (at least youd have a pretty valid lawsuit to pay reduced exit fee given substantially reducesed conference value)? But the reality is that would mean 4 teams already left, so unlikely to be one of the top brands.... Though If like SEC got UNC+UVA asap, and then like FSU+Clemson announced out? Would be an interesting consideration lol.....

The problem is say we leave for the 2027 football season. That costs us $147M exit fee. B1G full distribution is likely >$80M/yr. Maybe as much as $100M/yr (if we want to be generous). USC and UCLA got 100% shares. Oregon and UW got 50-60% shares. However we are expected to receive like $50M/yr from the ACC (well for 2025 season we will receive closer to $70M!), maybe $60M/yr is reasonable estimate for ACC payouts 2027-2029? So the difference between full B1G v ACC share is lets say $40M/yr. That means from 2027-2029, it'd be a $120M increase in revenue for us.... Well It costs $147M to leave. So NET thats -$27M to join B1G at FULL SHARE starting 2027 season (or -$9M/yr). This is really not so bad... However If only 50-60% share through 2029, this brings the cost to -$140M at best... Which would be very bad.... But again USC and UCLA DID get full shares. Oregon and UW had no alternative really. I think it's likely we'd be closer to how USC got treated here... At least I really ******* hope so.

All that to say, it basically only really makes sense to leave asap IF we get Full Shares. And this is why I said with the ACC Success Initiative and increased payouts it actually doesn't even make financial sense to leave before 2030 when the B1G is up for renegotiation and we could immediately get full shares no matter what. The only reason it can make sense is to eat that cost because congress/law would not allow you to leave at all after 2029....

Honestly before CFP changed the payout, it objectively made CLEAR financial sense for us to stay ACC through 2028 at Minimum tbh... Now with the new change, we will have to see. If we can get full shares from B1G immediately, I'd prefer to leave asap. No need to risk anything. Get in asap, eat $10M at most or whatever it'd be....
Click to expand...
The "leave" cost could drop IMMEDIATELY if the P2 take certain actions. As stated, the threat of unpopular actions by congress could very well accelerate "realignment" decisions by the P2. The potential ruling of forced POOLING of all media rights could definitely push the P2 to join forces and form what is essentially a 'super league' and in THAT case, according to the ACC settlement, 6 teams or more could leave the ACC at an exit fee of $75M per team. That would essentially blow up the ACC, 6-8 teams would leave to join the P2, and then the best of the rest would join the B12, leftovers would head wherever they could find a home.

It has been a tumultuous 4 year period regarding realignment, with momentum moving from conference desires, to media partner stalled negotiations and conflicts of interest, and finally to government intervention. Will the P2 conferences finally say "enough is enough" and take control of THEIR destiny over the next couple of months?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top