You don't do anything if you believe the GOR and other contact terms are unbreakable.
Would you agree if the ACC offered this as a settlement?
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Yea but if the case is held in Florida, they will lose. You, of all people, should know we aren't a nation of laws. We are a nation of judges. Find a judge on your team and you're good
SMF....that may be the greatest post you have ever posted...given the times.
If 10 schools conspire to break up an agreement for the intent of making more money...does that hold them financially accountable for the loss of money to the displaced?
I'm not as sure about that you are. Florida judges are still required to follow the law and appeals mostly get things right.
Nah. Laws can be interpreted a thousand different ways. Just find a judge on your team. That's all that's needed.
I'd guess that ESPN would sue the crap out of them and if its heard in Connecticut, they'd win.
Why?
That doesn’t keep the big dogs in the conference.
FSU insiders are saying they are hearing FSU will announce its departure by 2025. Won’t be in the ACC by 2027. Regardless of what happens with the GOR.
What does winning the lawsuit matter if it kills the ACC?
The issue is: how do you keep the ACC alive? The “GOR” is clearly not the answer.
I think the whole Pac12 thing was more fantasy than reality. If anything, it was an attempt at leverage against the existing Big12. There was never any benefit to Texas or Oklahoma to go west. None. The Pac12 collapsed because it became a big diluted mess. So the Big12 got ten years of being pushed around by two schools, catered to their every whim, and they still walked away leaving that conference a big diluted mess. This argument that the Big12 is in such wonderful shape is one of the funnier things on the internet. No matter what they do with that conference, everyone can't wait to leave.
$$$
Money alone keeps the conference alive because not enough schools will forego TV rights to cause it to break up. FSU alone or even FSU and Clemson leaving isn't enough to break up the conference.
You apparently didn't read my post.
"if you believe the GOR and other contact terms are unbreakable".
So, yes, my entire argument is based on that premise.
Yep. The B12 may have stayed alive but remains a minor player.
The news of the settlement in the other thread makes the OP proposal even worse. Pitt's share of revenue at 5% would barely cover the salaries and amortization of the settlement costs. Either Pitt sports as we know it would be over or Pitt would not be able to compete with other schools' salaries. The teams with lower payouts, like BC, would likely drop out of the conference, citing inability to compete.
Last edited:
That would be the best outcome actually and perhaps more of a reason to do it. Drive out leaches, Wake and BC. They have no business in the league anyway.
Maybe Texas was using it as leverage but lets say that the B12 JUCOs didnt cave. Do you really think Texas would have stayed with Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, and Iowa State over aligning with West Coast schools in more lucrative markets? Remember, TT, OU, and OK St was going with them. I dont think Texas had any allegiance to Kansas, KSt, ISU, and Baylor. So I 100% believe they would have gone to the P12 if the JUCOs didnt cave.
How many people in Boston do you believe watch ACC sports solely because Boston College is in the league?
They bring close to 0 value to the ACC. It was a terrible decision to add them in the first place.
I don't care if FSU (Or Clemson) leave the ACC as long as they pay the ACC (GOR Settlement) to leave.
No concern that the ACC Conference will continue to survive.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
I think it was more reality than fantasy.
And the argument isn’t the Big 12 is in great shape. It’s clearly the little kid’s table.
But it still exists. And the most optimistic posters on this board basis a lot of their optimism on the idea of, “it’s impossible to predict the college football landscape X number of years from now.”
And that’s true. And the Big 12 is at least going to survive to see what the future holds. PAC 12 isn’t. Who knows about the ACC.
The ACC isnt going anywhere unless it has a P2 invite....and they may get one. But there is a 0.0% chance they are giving up a CFP bid and potential TV revenue losses by going Independent.
They don’t give up tv revenue.
You think ESPN isn’t going to put FSU on tv? And the ACC is just going to hold on to the rights and not use them? And get paid for not using them?
Their TV rights are property of the ACC. And as a non-member, they wouldn't be due any payment from the ACC. They'd have to go to court again to demand payment for their TV broadcasts as an Independent.
What you’re claiming is illegal.
I’ve already linked you this board’s favorite pro-ACC attorney.
There is no basis in contract law where you perform for the benefit of somebody else and they don’t have to compensate you. None.
The ACC will still have to compensate those schools. The ACC just would own the rights to shop their tv rights around. In this case to ESPN, or if ESPN pulls out, maybe to another channel. Although the GOR does seem to indicate its consideration for ESPN.
Where did I say anything about Boston alone? Lots of markets in NE watch the ACC because Boston and others carry the ACCN. It wouldn't be in as many markets if BC were gone.
For a self-proclaimed TV expert, you sure are dumb.
I think they will pay at least what Pitt would get under the 5% scenario. Plus we get those schools' GOR.
YES
ESPN needs the ACC for sports content.
They could substitute "marble championhip contests" in lieu of football games.
Fox sports can then claim to be the leader in sports.
ESPN has more to lose from an ACC Break Up.
ESPN will do what is in their best interests when they have to.
Let the law suits continue.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
And almost no New Englanders watch the ACC because BC is in it. Here we go again. Is the shy green? Is grass orange? Your lack of knowledge on everything is shocking.
You can't read. I said they can only watch the ACCN because the Boston market carries the ACCN only due to BC's inclusion. If Pitt weren't in the ACC, the Pittsburgh market wouldn't likely have the ACCN. Do you even remember the hair-pulling about missing games when the ACCN was delayed in Pittsburgh?
I agree with you but why would a conference invite you without having the lucrative TV rights?
Additionally, the ACCN/ESPN will now get additional TV coverage in Northern California and Dallas TX.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Unless it's a Pitt judge, an egg head Pitt judge will want to show that they don't care that much about football
Well, Larry Scott said it was the Pac12 that decided not to add them, so, if you believe what SI and ESPN reported on the matter, the Big12 didn't actually do anything to make those two stay. Texas took the ESPN rights that were there and kept them to themselves and prevented the conference from creating a network. Also prevented expansion and then proceeded to underperform like FSU. So there wasn't anything gained at all.
Wrong again. Pittsburgh has gotten SECN from Day 1 and its not because Kentucky is our local team.
If you believe that ACCN would never have gotten carriage in Boston due to BC being in the league, fine. Still, those are cable dollars from one city that are split 14 ways. That's not a lot. And nationally, they bring no value. There was that study posted on here a few weeks ago that listed BC as one of the least valuable programs in the P5. Wake and SMU were up there too. Dallas and Boston are great markets but no one cares.
ACCN maybe wouldn't be in mid markets without a local team, but they are well represented I think in a lot of areas without ACC teams. Here in Houston we have the ACCN, even before SMU was added.
What are you talking about? For BC, its ONLY about cable dollars. The only value they bring is getting in-market rates for ACCN. Nationally, they are a no-name. Even in Boston, they are an afterthought. And go 10 miles outside of Boston and no one ever heard of them.
Similar threads
