So you are a sports socialist then? Shouldnt the ACC pay FSU what they are worth instead of having FSU subsidize Wake Forest?
Would you agree if the ACC offered this as a settlement?
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
So you are a sports socialist then? Shouldnt the ACC pay FSU what they are worth instead of having FSU subsidize Wake Forest?
The ACC and ESPN can discuss contract modifications anytime they want. If the ACC and ESPN’s interpretation of the contact is correct, that’s just when the agreement mandates a “look in.” But you can always go to the other party in a contract and propose new terms.
The ACC is on fire right now. Seems like if there could be contractual terms that could put that fire out, we wouldn’t be waiting until 2025.
But what if a full share when all the dust settles is less or equal to the reduced share proposed?
What does inequality matter if equality means you’re poorer?
No
You let things play out and then settle on the steps of the Court House.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
I could be wrong but I think your use of the word "joined" is incorrect here. I dont think its the ACC & ESPN vs FSU. I think its just ESPN putting out a legal memo that they support the ACC's lawsuit
I'm more confident in Pitt's value and leadership than you seem to be.
At no point did I talk about "equality". I talked about the degree of differential. 3+ times is way too big a differential. After all, both teams are members of the same conference, which should have some meaning.
I could see it having a chance if the proposal comes from the TV partner. There are a couple moving parts there but its a longshot.
"Socialist"
You want the more valuable schools to subsidize the less valuable schools. You have a socialistic view of sports and that's fine. That's how American sports are. European sports are the exact opposite, ironically.
To some degree, I guess I do. Because that is what conference affiliations do. Anyone joining a conference agrees to share revenues. Conference affiliations provide benefits beyond revenue-sharing and that means some degree of equality, though not completely.
That is not socialism, though. You don't get to make up your own definition to fit your narrative.
I wish i could put Pitt in this category....but i dont think they care about being a real player. The ACC pays the bills.....and thats all that matters to Pitt.
Pitt spends the fourth most on football in the ACC (fifth if you include Notre Dame. Pitt’s football budget is more than the annual ACC distribution.
A conference is a group of teams who agree to play each other and crown a champion. Nowhere does it state that a conference has to negotiate a TV deal. Schools should negotiate their own TV deals so the Ohio State's and Florida State's get much more than Wake's and Northwestern's. You should be paid what you are worth.
I’m just thinking about how the programs were perceived to be when they first joined the ACC. Miami was a national power and Virginia Tech was supposed to be right up there with them.
On the flip side, you could probably make the same argument about us and Syracuse in basketball…
Yet again you try to define a term - conference - to fit your narrative. A conference is far more than you describe. Any school that wants to negotiate its own tv deal is a school that should be independent, like Notre Dame.
It's more an issue of something closer to equity than equality. Doesn't have to be equal but just allowing one or two programs to push around everyone else is what happened to the Big12 and at the end of the day, it didn't do any of the smaller programs any good. In many ways it left them worse off.
Where does it state that a conference must negotiate a TV deal on behalf of its members and pay them all evenly? This is what you want a conference to do but they aren't required to. Why did they have conferences before the TV was invented? Why do high schools have conferences? You know why? The main purpose of a conference is to have teams to play and to crown a champion. You want it to be more than that because you are a socialist.
Catering to Texas 100% saved Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. Their futures are viewed as more secure than ours and its because catering to Texas bought them time.
That is stupid. Banding together doesn't mean socialism. It means cooperation for improvement of their situation. It's voluntary, not controlled. Sign on because it works....and sign off if not.
ESPN joins ACC in lawsuit against FSU, references potential felony in disclosing trade secrets.
We're early on in the first quarter of the ACC-ESPN-FSU legal dispute and already the sides are speculating on potential felonies. Many moving parts.
Just have to sit back and let the legal process unfold.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
LOL. Redefining words to your liking is your stock in trade. I won't allow you to get away with it without a challenge.
You just hate conferences because they aren't a real company ... using another of your failed redefinition attempts.
By the Big12 fanboy propaganda machine? Yeah, sure.
I hate when people use words that they don't understand. If NCAA had anything close to real socialism, this thread wouldn't be happening.
Yep. That is what kept Texas and OU in the Big 12 rather than making the move to the PAC 12.
Which allowed the Big 12 to see another tomorrow. Enough tomorrows went by and the PAC 12 died and the Big 12 survived.
That's why the NFL is the most popular league and the small market Stealers have the most Super Bowls. and that's why European sports suck, like Bayern Munich winning the Last 10 titles, BORING.
I guess I don’t get this statement. What did catering to Texas do for the Big 12 besides prolong the inevitable? The only reason why their outlook is viewed that way is because:
- They lost Oklahoma and Texas before the Pac-12 lost UCLA and USC
- They beat the Pac-12 to the negotiating table for a new TV deal
But there’s no commissioner here.
This grand share the revenue world is maybe something worth dreaming of, but that’s all it is.
In the real world, the cash cows are leaving the conference. Which will probably kill the conference.
“But the NFL” isn’t much of an answer to that.
Had they not catered to Texas then Texas, OU, OK St, and TT would have went to the Pac 12. That deal was done. Only Kansas, KSt, Iowa St, and Baylor were left. WVU and TCU were in the Big East. Had they not caved to Texas, the Big 12 would have died right there. The Big East would have added a few, if not all, of KU, KSt, IU, and Baylor. So caving to Texas was 100% responsible for the B12 not dying about 10-12 years ago. And right now, some believe its in a position to be the 3rd conference after the P2. When it should have died 3 times already.
That’s a fair take, and I see where you’re coming from now.
Edit: So you’re saying to appease to Clemson/FSU to prolong their exit as long as possible to wait out the Big 12?
Last edited:
Yep. Give FSU and Clemson what they want. You need to be alive to see tomorrow. Appeasing them prolongs the ACC to 2036 and then we see what the landscape is. They probably still leave in 2036 but at least you gave it a shot.
Similar threads
