forums

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

Attachments

  • IMG_4762.webp
    IMG_4762.webp
    21.3 KB · Views: 0




All you need to know is that Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson are requesting to increase expansion to 22 teams and drop the requirement to go independent for 3 years.

The # 22 is because they do not trust that Notre Dame will not enter the discussion for joining the B1G if they see the ACC falling apart. Notre Dame’s preferred travel partner to the B1G is Stanford (although they have to change their library system to the B1G). That means Miami may need to be the 21st addition to the B1G with a travel partner, which is GT likely over Duke, with Clemson a slight chance. The SEC wants UNC, UVA, FSU and Clemson.

Also, the B1G wants to expand a **** of a lot more than the SEC does. The B1G wants to be in the SE so their interest in expanding to 22 forces the SEC to expand more.
 
Last edited:
5NC4 said:




All you need to know is that Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson are requesting to increase expansion to 22 teams and drop the requirement to go independent for 3 years.

The # 22 is because they do not trust that Notre Dame will not enter the discussion for joining the B1G if they see the ACC falling apart. Notre Dame’s preferred travel partner to the B1G is Stanford (although they have to change their library system to the B1G). That means Miami may need to be the 21st addition to the B1G with a travel partner, which is GT likely over Duke, with Clemson a slight chance. The SEC wants UNC, UVA, FSU and Clemson.

Also, the B1G wants to expand a **** of a lot more than the SEC does. The B1G wants to be in the SE so their interest in expanding to 22 forces the SEC to expand more.
Click to expand...

Nd is that annoying gnat that won’t go away
 
Hurracanes said:
Originally, Miami, FSU and Clemson initiated the moves behind the scenes. Miami tried to avoid negative publicity unlike FSU. Other schools began participating as time went on. Worked out beautifully.
Click to expand...

I’m old enough to remember when the TALKING POINT was MIAMI wasn’t joining the lawsuit because B1G looks down on PUBLIC BAD PRESS…

Welp are we screwed NOW that were PUBLICALLY getting called out by Trumps puppet? Were we right THREE YEARS AGO or today?
 
TheOGCane said:
I’m old enough to remember when the TALKING POINT was MIAMI wasn’t joining the lawsuit because B1G looks down on PUBLIC BAD PRESS…

Welp are we screwed NOW that we’re PUBLICALLY getting called out by Trumps puppet? Were we right THREE YEARS AGO or today?
Click to expand...
There are levels to this. It’s funny how Miami is suddenly being mentioned everywhere as a potential ACC departure, yet they weren’t involved in any of the lawsuits against the ACC. Those suits started the motion to create a new deal that would allow everyone to exit in 2030 instead of 2036. It worked beautifully.

I guess that’s just a coincidence..
 
I was speculating on possible outcomes and wondered about the following scenario:

Could Disney decide to renegotiate the ACC contract higher to keep the conference intact? Do they benefit more from having the four conference system over a P2 and a stepchild conference, or is it a wash to them?

Would we want to stay in an ACC conference that has as much earning potential as the BiG or SEC?
 
grover said:
I was speculating on possible outcomes and wondered about the following scenario:

Could Disney decide to renegotiate the ACC contract higher to keep the conference intact? Do they benefit more from having the four conference system over a P2 and a stepchild conference, or is it a wash to them?

Would we want to stay in an ACC conference that has as much earning potential as the BiG or SEC?
Click to expand...
Disney has had nearly 20 years to decide to prop up the ACC as a complement to the SEC, thus far choosing to do the opposite.

Maybe that was all petty *** for tat after the Raycom nepotism bull**** from last decade, but that would be an awful long tail.
 
grover said:
I was speculating on possible outcomes and wondered about the following scenario:

Could Disney decide to renegotiate the ACC contract higher to keep the conference intact? Do they benefit more from having the four conference system over a P2 and a stepchild conference, or is it a wash to them?

Would we want to stay in an ACC conference that has as much earning potential as the BiG or SEC?
Click to expand...

The varying conference payouts for media deals are the true rot that's causing all this chaos. If they really wanted to protect college football they would prevent individual media deals from being negotiated or force equal revenue sharing from all contracts.

Imagine if the AFC and NFC had separate media deals and teams made more money in one conference than the other. And the government stepped in and said teams can't transfer conferences. It would be a slam dunk antitrust lawsuit. I don't know how this is any different once the government stops expansion.
 
hurricaneman said:
The varying conference payouts for media deals are the true rot that's causing all this chaos. If they really wanted to protect college football they would prevent individual media deals from being negotiated or force equal revenue sharing from all contracts.

Imagine if the AFC and NFC had separate media deals and teams made more money in one conference than the other. And the government stepped in and said teams can't transfer conferences. It would be a slam dunk antitrust lawsuit. I don't know how this is any different once the government stops expansion.
Click to expand...
??? It is all driven what advertisers are willing to pay for commercial time. High visibility = high demand = $$ value. The SEC and Big 10 have the best products and command more $$ for commercial spots and are therefore able to offer higher dollar media contracts to their conferences. Why should a profitable company be forced to share profits with a less profitable company? The ENTIRE sports industry changed THE VERY DAY ESPN LAUNCHED IN 1979 and began to pay for content to broadcast. Schools that WANT big time media deals ALSO must invest in big time NIL and coaching staff + facilities. Programs that don't want to have no fundamental RIGHT to receive revenue generated BY those that invest. You're asking for SOCIALISM in a business environment that is driven by investment. Either invest and participate or don't.
 
Minor observation. Niki deal is another signal that it is a remote remote possibility that Miami falls into obscurity.
 
Hurracanes said:
There are levels to this. It’s funny how Miami is suddenly being mentioned everywhere as a potential ACC departure, yet they weren’t involved in any of the lawsuits against the ACC. Those suits started the motion to create a new deal that would allow everyone to exit in 2030 instead of 2036. It worked beautifully.

I guess that’s just a coincidence..
Click to expand...

Last year you said BAD PUBLIC AIRING OF GRIEVANCES turns off B1G.

Miami is now PUBLICALLY AIRING GRIEVANCES.

Were you lying THEN or lying NOW?
 
TheOGCane said:
Last year you said BAD PUBLIC AIRING OF GRIEVANCES turns off B1G.

Miami is now PUBLICALLY AIRING GRIEVANCES.

Were you lying THEN or lying NOW?
Click to expand...
Miami hasn't made any public airing of grievances by asking Congress to allow them to keep their options open.

Removing the expansion provision doesn't mean Miami wants to leave the ACC..it means they want to keep the door open so they don't lose their leverage.

I'm actually not fully convinced Miami would leave asap.

If FSU and Clemson both leave and each pay $100mil, let them go that route and Miami gets to benefit from the extra $200mil for a few years and then leave when the B1G expands.

Even let UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU all leave together..each pays $100mil. That's $400 mil to the ACC and 4 less schools to share it with. Miami would have so much leverage at that point we could force uneven revenue distribution and get a larger share of that $400mil.

Then leave a few years later, hundreds of $mil richer and with a lower exit fee, when B1G can add Miami + ND.

Arguing against the provision is Miami's argument for maintaining leverage. If Congress closes that door then Miami loses all leverage and the ACC can do whatever they want.
 
Yoyo423 said:
Miami hasn't made any public airing of grievances by asking Congress to allow them to keep their options open.

Removing the expansion provision doesn't mean Miami wants to leave the ACC..it means they want to keep the door open so they don't lose their leverage.

I'm actually not fully convinced Miami would leave asap.

If FSU and Clemson both leave and each pay $100mil, let them go that route and Miami gets to benefit from the extra $200mil for a few years and then leave when the B1G expands.

Even let UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU all leave together..each pays $100mil. That's $400 mil to the ACC and 4 less schools to share it with. Miami would have so much leverage at that point we could force uneven revenue distribution and get a larger share of that $400mil.

Then leave a few years later, hundreds of $mil richer and with a lower exit fee, when B1G can add Miami + ND.

Arguing against the provision is Miami's argument for maintaining leverage. If Congress closes that door then Miami loses all leverage and the ACC can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Yes Miami has

 
Back
Top