oh, my bad....
I thought when you wrote "Notre Dame and the ACC are NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL 2036"
you meant there weren't available...
I won't bother paying attention in the future........
Pac12 dissolution discussion
- Thread starter rotorocker
- Start date
I thought when you wrote "Notre Dame and the ACC are NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL 2036"
you meant there weren't available...
I won't bother paying attention in the future........
The PAC12 does have a GOR and it expires after this upcoming year. That’s exactly why USC and UCLA are leaving after this year.
OU and Texas are leaving a year early on their GOR not 13 years early and it’s still costing them about 100M. Texas has boatloads of money and yet they were stuck until 1 year left.
I don’t know if the desired ACC teams will be around til 2036 but I’d be shocked if there’s not a 2030 handle on their departure and I’d guess at most 2-3 years early. You can say contracts can be broken but that also goes hand in hand with some sort of settlement. With 13 years left on the GOR, the settlement amount is likely way too prohibitive for any school.
OU and Texas are leaving a year early on their GOR not 13 years early and it’s still costing them about 100M. Texas has boatloads of money and yet they were stuck until 1 year left.
I don’t know if the desired ACC teams will be around til 2036 but I’d be shocked if there’s not a 2030 handle on their departure and I’d guess at most 2-3 years early. You can say contracts can be broken but that also goes hand in hand with some sort of settlement. With 13 years left on the GOR, the settlement amount is likely way too prohibitive for any school.
I have read suggestions that the GOR is not legally enforceable, but the argument I've seen so far for that is pretty weak. But one never knows.
Last edited:
I have read the same accounts saying GORs are legally weak, yet no school including Texas (who has no problem acting like they are above everything as with the LHN) has challenged one in court.
Note, though, that Georgia Tech is located in a little town called Atlanta -- the tenth largest media market in America. The carriage fees from having a team in that market might be important to the Big Ten. I think it's unrealistic, too, -- Ga. Tech isn't going anywhere because it is subject to the ACC GOR -- but it's not entirely absurd that the Big Ten might find Ga. Tech attractive.
For those who think ACC teams will get out anytime soon, here is the best way I could put it as to why they won’t.
-courts don’t really like taking on theoretical issues like a school asking them to rule on the question “I’m not saying I am leaving, but if I were would I be bound by the terms of this GOR I signed?”
-so, a school has to actually announce intentions to leave a conference to get the GOR resolution started in court. However, that resolution including appeals could take years.
-which leaves us with the catch 22… a school has to have an invitation from their new conference to risk fighting the GOR in court, but no conference is going to risk inviting a school from a GOR conference until the GOR issue has been legally settled.
-courts don’t really like taking on theoretical issues like a school asking them to rule on the question “I’m not saying I am leaving, but if I were would I be bound by the terms of this GOR I signed?”
-so, a school has to actually announce intentions to leave a conference to get the GOR resolution started in court. However, that resolution including appeals could take years.
-which leaves us with the catch 22… a school has to have an invitation from their new conference to risk fighting the GOR in court, but no conference is going to risk inviting a school from a GOR conference until the GOR issue has been legally settled.
There is a device called a declaratory judgment in which a party can ask the court to define the party's legal rights -- here, whether the GOR is binding -- without having breached the contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment
Last edited:
I was going to ask why none of the schools like FSU who have been willing to leak statements about how they interpret the GOR have tried the route you linked.
Then, I realized that it comes down to a bluffing game. As long as there is uncertainty there is still hope they can negotiate some kind of concessions with their conference. If they try this Declaratory judgement route and don’t get the answer they want, they lose all leverage and are stuck.
It doesn’t change my main point. No conference is inviting a school from a GOR conference until there is certainty on what a GOR means legally.
Nobody’s going to outwardly disclose their plan of action
That doesn’t mean fsu is going this route, but if they were, Alford’s not going to publicly say it
GOR is a major obstacle and is the primary reason they, and others, are still in that god forsaken league
But it does get rid of the Catch-22 you were talking about because the school and the conference wouldn't have to risk having to pay substantial damages if they lose.
It was worth reading through this thread just to get to this one. Imagine talking down to people and then forgetting how many teams are in the B1G?
Arizona Knight:
It was worth reading through this thread just to get to this one. Imagine talking down to people and then forgetting how many teams are in the B1G?
I'm a philosophy major.
Last edited:
There is not a risk to pay damages, but there is a risk in that a negative judgement removes any leverage (ability to bluff) from the losing side.
You would want to exhaust any possibility of negotiating better terms before you try this move. I wonder if schools leaking the unequal revenue sharing idea is part of that.
Not getting any movement on that idea might be the final step before a school or schools try to get a declaratory judgement.
What I find fascinating with Atlanta (Georgia Tech) is planting the Big 10 Flag in the heart of Dixie (SEC). You know that has to make the SEC sick inside. It would be like the SEC planting he Flag in Chicago.
This how I feel about the whole expansion into the SE.
I've mentioned this here before but I've read even hinting at trying to subvert the GOR can be taken as withdrawing from the conference according to the B12 GORs. I've also read in the past the ACC GOR is practically word for word the same as the B12 GOR in many areas so it's possible a similar clause could be in the ACC.
Here's a link to the FranktheTank blog discussing the B12 GOR.
Dissolution is Not a Solution to Break a Grant of Rights Agreement
It has been a whirlwind for the past three weeks since the Big Ten announced that it was expanding with USC and UCLA. I have a lot of thoughts on what the Big Ten will (or more likely, won’t)…
frankthetank.org
I've said this before but if I'm the ACC I'm planning for the eventual departure of some schools in the 2030s. I'd be trying to coax WVU and possibly UCF/Cincy out of the B12 when their tv rights come around again. Maybe even UConn depending on how many schools leave the ACC. It's not a 1:1 trade with departing schools but it's better than other options that would likely be out there. You want to get them when the opportunity arises or they could be stuck in their own GOR with the B12. I think it's similar to the PAC12 after OU/Texas left the B12. B12 schools were begging to get in and they passed on it and now I bet they wish they hadn't. Well USC/UCLA might have blindsided the PAC12 but the ACC shouldn't be blindsided by schools leaving in the 2030s and should be preparing for that time, specifically when the B12 tv contract comes up again.
Last edited:
Just a correction: Oklahoma and Texas were never part of the Pac12. The conference tried to recruit them and failed.I've mentioned this here before but I've read even hinting at trying to subvert the GOR can be taken as withdrawing from the conference according to the B12 GORs. I've also read in the past the ACC GOR is practically word for word the same as the B12 GOR in many areas so it's possible a similar clause could be in the ACC.
Here's a link to the FranktheTank blog discussing the B12 GOR.
Dissolution is Not a Solution to Break a Grant of Rights Agreement
It has been a whirlwind for the past three weeks since the Big Ten announced that it was expanding with USC and UCLA. I have a lot of thoughts on what the Big Ten will (or more likely, won’t)…
I've said this before but if I'm the ACC I'm planning for the eventual departure of some schools in the 2030s. I'd be trying to coax WVU and possibly UCF/Cincy out of the B12 when their tv rights come around again. Maybe even UConn depending on how many schools leave the ACC. It's not a 1:1 trade with departing schools but it's better than other options that would likely be out there. You want to get them when the opportunity arises or they could be stuck in their own GOR with the B12. I think it's similar to the PAC12 after OU/Texas left. B12 schools were begging to get in and they passed on it and now I bet they wish they hadn't. Well USC/UCLA might have blindsided the PAC12 but the ACC shouldn't be blindsided by schools leaving in the 2030s and should be preparing for that time, specifically when the B12 tv contract comes up again.
That’s just poor sentence construction on my part lol. I meant the ACC is in a similar situation to the PAC 12 when OU Texas left the B12. The PAC 12 had an opportunity to prepare for possible outcomes, maybe somewhat unforeseen, but passed. In the ACC’s case it’s definitely foreseen and the train is heading down the tunnel at them be it in decade or whatever.
There were lots of negotiations between the Pac12 and Texas/Oklahoma -- they failed over Texas's desire to keep the Longhorn Network. Taking Colorado and Utah was supposed to be part of getting Texas and Oklahoma. Maybe the Pac-12 could have taken other Big 12 schools, but I'm not sure that many of them would have wanted to do that without Texas/Oklahoma. For more on this, see https://longhornswire.usatoday.com/...ter-how-texas-squashed-the-pac-16-conference/
Why would anyone want to go to the ACC? It is a train wreck waiting to happen, much like the PAC. I can see anywhere from 4 to 5 programs going to the Big 10 as well as 4 or 5 programs going to the SEC. The ACC is going to be a shell of itself even with pre-emptive measures.
I'm not talking about the Larry Scott play from long ago. I'm talking about Kliavkoff and the PAC12 recently after the news of OU/Texas leaving to the SEC. After that B12 schools were crawling to the PAC12 for entry and the PAC12 passed on it. I bet they wish they didn't in hindsight after USC/UCLA left.
That's my point. The ACC is likely going to lose teams in a decade or so. They shouldn't be blindsided by it and should be looking for what schools they could add as replacements and IMO WVU, UCF and maybe Cincy/Uconn could be targets by the time the next B12 tv contract comes around. It's not an even trade for what they will lose but it's better than what may be out there at the time. Better to buttress yourselves before the storm hits.
I think the ACC can be on par with the B12 after losing some schools. About 2 decades ago they were actually the leader in tv money but probably should be about 3rd but Swoffords poor strategy put them at the bottom.
Regardless, the ACC fits better geographically for a WVU and UCF and is probably attractive enough for Cincy and an upgrade for UConn. ACC/B12 are about on par IMO as long as they don't lose a ton of schools in the 2030s. They won't make up for what the ACC loses but it's better than alternatives out there.
Isn't the difference that the Pac-12 had no reason to expect that USC/UCLA would jump? By contrast, the ACC has plenty of time to anticipate what will happen when the GOR runs out.
Like I said, it might have been somewhat surprising but not all that unexpected, especially after OU and Texas left the B12.
USC and UCLA had been grumbling about revenue for a bit. They used to have unequal revenue share in the PAC12 until this last, at the time blockbuster, deal by Scott which enacted equal revenue sharing. As other conferences slowly passed the PAC12 then you got more grumbling.
I think it was within day or two of the OU Texas news, even a messageboard nobody like me was concocting an idea of how the B10 should go after west coast schools and then eventually ACC schools in a play that could possibly land ND.
It should have definitely been on their radar as a possibility to be aware of and prepared for especially after the 2 big dogs in another conference left. Why wouldn’t you think there’s a possibility that the 2 big dogs in your own conference couldn’t leave, especially when trailing in money. We also know that tv deals expirations are often a pressure point for movement too. Either make sure USC/UCLA don’t leave with GOR extension beyond the expiring tv deal or overrule any of their objections and seriously look at the B12 leftovers. They did neither and now they’re paying the price for not considering possible eventualities.
And no one will know, because no one will dare to find out.
I'm not sure that's true; as I say above, a party might be able to seek a declaratory judgment, and in that way get a decision on validity without risking heavy damages.
JHC you people are dense. Texas is the only school with the money, political clout and bravado to challenge it and they stepped down! The GOR is airtight and the cost to any school would set them further back. the courts are not going to help here
ACC is fked and rightfully so as no one in their right mind would sign away rights for 20yrs. just dumb
ACC is fked and rightfully so as no one in their right mind would sign away rights for 20yrs. just dumb
ND can't join any conference until it's affiliation with ACC is over. They are legally bonded to the ACC and should they decide to join a conference prior to '36 it has to be the ACC. ND is the only school that increase the payout for each B10 school (in conjunction with Stanford, FL school and UNC). No other combo will add 80+ plus per school
no one, NO ONE is taking less money going forward
no one, NO ONE is taking less money going forward
Yes, Texas opted to make an exit deal with the Big 12 rather than challenge the Big 12's GOR in court. But that GOR only had a year or two to run, and there was a lot more involved than just the GOR.
BTW, the issue of whether the GOR is valid is one of law and so challenging it is a matter of paying for lawyers to write briefs. That costs money, of course, but it's nothing like the costs of preparing for and having a trial on issues of fact.
As for "political clout," a challenge to a GOR would almost certainly be heard in federal court where state institutions don't heave nearly the influence they do in a state court. (For those curious, it would be heard in a federal court because those courts have jurisdiction over law suits between "citizens" of different states -- say, a lawsuit by me against someone in Pa. Even if the case were brought in state court, the defendant could "remove" it to federal court.)
I agree that the GOR is probably valid, and so challenging it should be a last resort. But nothing is airtight until a court says it is.
P.S. It's probably better not to use words like "dense." There really are posters who are as smart as you are, although I wouldn't claim to be one of them.
People here in SEC country wouldn't really care if GaTech was in B1G. Tech is an afterthought. If you said Clemson went to the B1G, people might care since they are at the top in Football, which is what people care about here.
I agree, GT must improve their major athletic programs before anyone really care about where they go next realignment
Georgia Tech won the mythical national championship in football four times, most recently in 1990 when one of my nieces was an undergrad there. (BTW, my niece had a great experience there that has served her well. It's not a terrible program; just one that's not doing well right now. The school could be a great addition to another conference.
You know on top of potential late night Saturday and Friday night packages that could be created if you have more teams from the west and eventually east, you could also create more value with conference semifinal games. So there would be 2 additional attractive games to sell in addition to the B10 championship. As it stands, the B10 has 3 partners so the 2 semifinal games and the champ game could be split among those 3 partners. In future, if ESPN is back in the fold 3 out of 4 partner could get it and it would create some competition among them.
So I don't just look at what the individual value of any particular school might. Again the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I see the potential value that can also be brought when taken as a whole.
Reading about the new commish and his involvement in the creation of the BCS, MLB playoff expansion, Field of Dreams game etc..I wouldn't put it past him to be creative with additional packages like these to sell.
So I don't just look at what the individual value of any particular school might. Again the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I see the potential value that can also be brought when taken as a whole.
Reading about the new commish and his involvement in the creation of the BCS, MLB playoff expansion, Field of Dreams game etc..I wouldn't put it past him to be creative with additional packages like these to sell.
I agree. If you go to 20 teams, you could have a 4 team playoff. 3 additional games of major importance. If you go to 24 teams, you could have an 8 team playoff. An additional 7 games of content.
I don’t know about 8 because you still have the CFP and you don’t want to dilute the playoff product that much either.
In the same way I see 24 as the max for total teams, I think 4 is also the max for a conference playoff.
I should also add you’d probably have to do some sort of flex schedule in the last week of the “regular season” to encompass the conference playoff so more total games aren’t added to an athletes schedule, especially if you include the CFP games. That’s also another reason 8 teams in a conference playoff would be too many.
guess I'm just looking at GT wrong.
After I read what you posted checked W-L record and though in last few years are nothing to write home to mother about, they were 9-4 in 2016 and 11-3 in 2014.
The program seems to have an attendance problem, but I can't get on my high horse about that ,because Rutgers isn't filling the SHI out constantly .
Last edited:
I see this evolving to the point, that the Big 10 will eventually split off from the NCAA and have their own Association. If you know the history (creation) of the Big 10, you might see where this is going.
Goes back to what Swarbrick, said. Two competing solar systems. I believe that the Big 10 will eventually have their own association, with their own championships.
When you compare Big 10 institutions to the SEC, what do they have in common outside of playing sports? They don't share the same values. I just believe one day the Big 10 will not associate with the SEC. If you go back prior to 1970, Big 10 schools really did not play SEC schools (difference in values).
Yes Swarbrick is right about 2 solar systems with the SEC and B10 but I don't foresee any splitting off of either. They are 2 solar systems but both still part of the same NCAA/CFP galaxy. There will be different stratospheres inside that galaxy.
Even though they want the lion share of the money, they both still want inclusion. It's good for the health of the sport and also keeps outside interference off their back.
The ACC is far more prestigious IMO - even with its huge warts. Flagship state universities in big states count a lot IMO.