forums

FSU testing the waters?

Wake_Cane said:
Also there's a pretty big blind spot in the analysis going on in this thread - This debate presumes that the GOR being ironclad is bad for us and good for the people who want to keep the status quo. That should not be presumed. The reality is probably closer to this- The GOR is NOT ironclad, and that is NOT good for us.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Canesrule230 said:
The ACC is likely cooked but I really would have liked to have seen an attempt by the conference to salvage itself by cutting dead weight and adding pieces that would provide attractive matchups and hence larger tv deals. In my mind it should have dropped BC, Duke, Syracuse, and WF and added at least Washington and Oregon.

You'd think a package of Clemson-Miami-FSU-Oregon-Washington-ND (as a partial member but ideally full) games along with the rest of the ACC pieces left would command a decent deal. Likely not as strong as the BIG or SEC deal but enough to keep it from dissolving.
Click to expand...
Removing Duke is an idiotic idea. You do realize they're a pretty big deal in basketball right?
 
Cajuncane said:
those BB schools your saying should take football seriously have been kicking our *** for several years....js
Click to expand...
Yes! part of the problem. Miami has been coasting as well. If Miami could live up to their erxpectations maybe the conference gets a better contract.
 
mcnaire2004 said:
Maybe, but I'm not respected
Click to expand...
Michael Richards Yes GIF
 
Advertisement
mcnaire2004 said:
I can only imagine because other schools are more attractive candidates for bigger conferences and we could get stuck in the ACC as a group of 6 conference.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly have followed ANY of the discussions and projections regarding conference realignment that have taken place over the past 12 months and come away with THAT read? Virtually every single analyst that has projected the "conference realignment and two major super conferences" has placed UM either in the Big 10 or the SEC. Even 247 recently showed the top perceived college football brands ... based on a survey of high school football recruits ... and U of Miami was in the top 10. The ESPN / FOX programming people would LOVE to have games with either UM / OSU or UM / Tennessee.
 
Rickd said:
How can you possibly have followed ANY of the discussions and projections regarding conference realignment that have taken place over the past 12 months and come away with THAT read? Virtually every single analyst that has projected the "conference realignment and two major super conferences" has placed UM either in the Big 10 or the SEC. Even 247 recently showed the top perceived college football brands ... based on a survey of high school football recruits ... and U of Miami was in the top 10. The ESPN / FOX programming people would LOVE to have games with either UM / OSU or UM / Tennessee.
Click to expand...
Mostly because most articles that cross my screen and most ESPN "journalist" usually say Clemson, FSU, and "maybe UNC". Only recently have I seen Miami start to slip into a few. All the Miami outlets I follow obviously always mention Miami.

Are you on a mission to prove the obvious to me? That we occasionally put up big ratings when we're occasionally in prime time?

Or do you consume your media in circle-jerk mode?
 
Last edited:
Alex Del Piero said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because an ironclad contract allows you to project future outcomes with near certainty and when that's the case it is far easier to manage the strategic space. When you want to entrench the status quo and avoid challenges to your legal position one of the best tools to use is intentionally injecting uncertainty into the contract/rules. This GOR looks like an effort to create strategic ambiguity of this nature .
 
canezhonkey said:
Removing Duke is an idiotic idea. You do realize they're a pretty big deal in basketball right?
Click to expand...
They bring next to nothing in football which dwarfs basketball in revenue. It’s why they may be locked out of the potential P2 model unless UNC forces another conference to take them in.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
I read it; & while I knew some of the language in this, it appears the GoR is **** near iron clad. I’m still not sure how this was signed off on. Seriously, this may be a bigger mystery than The Lockness Monster or Big Foot. Reading that article made me sick to my stomach, b/c it proves my point that there’s literally idiots put in charge of decisions making millions for no reason.
Click to expand...
All the parties [in ACC] couldn't concieve of the existential threat posed by SEC/Big 10 revenue outpacing theirs to the degree it has.

They crafted it and signed it because Maryland showed them no one feared departing.
 
Last edited:
Wake_Cane said:
Because an ironclad contract allows you to project future outcomes with near certainty and when that's the case it is far easier to manage the strategic space. When you want to entrench the status quo and avoid challenges to your legal position one of the best tools to use is intentionally injecting uncertainty into the contract/rules. This GOR looks like an effort to create strategic ambiguity of this nature .
Click to expand...


Yes, and if I may be so bold (I think I said something similar to @wspcane in a DM yesterday), I think some people interpret "ironclad" to mean "you can't get out of the contract", whereas I always felt that "ironclad" was a well-constructed contract with defined terms and very little uncertainty or contingencies. At least that's the way it is with the contracts that I look over.
 
Here's Skipper and Samson discussing FSU and the ACC deal at large. I don't find either likable (or Skipper to actually be in-tune with today's CFB landscape) but it's essentially the ESPN perspective and the perspective of someone like Samson that finds contracts as just sources of future negotiations.

Starts at around the 35:30 mark:

 
Back
Top