Stanford, Cal, SMU have been extended offers to the ACC

Two California schools in the Atlantic conference.

Don’t worry, this makes sense, college football is fine.
 
Red_Alert said:
well-there-it-is.gif
Click to expand...
SMU is BACK!
 
DayButtAssMans’s said:
Two California schools in the Atlantic conference.

Don’t worry, this makes sense, college football is fine.
Click to expand...
Dallas is in the NFC East even though there are only 7 NFL teams further west than them, NBD
 
Wild Turkey said:
Why would the ACC agree to that when they could get 6 games out of ND?

I’m betting ND agreed to the 6th game (Stanford) to get them in.
Click to expand...

The ACC has catered to every ND move thus far. If we have to play 6 nothing changes anyway, we just play Stanford every year and it's status quo. ND is going to push for it, we'll see if the ACC caves. My guess is yes.
 
UC-Berkeley versus UCLA is ACC versus Big 10. Weird...
 
CoalTrain said:
Anybody seen/heard anything on how if at all this affects their GOR?

Does it crack the door open for Clemson/FSU/UNC to begin their exits?

OR are we talking a new GOR ect.?

Also, wonder what the AAC does next? I know they’ve made a statement about not going for the PAC 2 leftovers already.
Click to expand...
if it impacted the GOR in a negative way, this wouldn't be happening. pretty obvious stuff.
 
ericd7633 said:
The ACC has catered to every ND move thus far. If we have to play 6 nothing changes anyway, we just play Stanford every year and it's status quo. ND is going to push for it, we'll see if the ACC caves. My guess is yes.
Click to expand...
I think you are grossly underestimating how badly they need that extra game.

ND is their number 1 revenue maker.
 
i can't stop laughing at the randomness of adding SMU

either way, collegiate sports suck now. this place needs more NFL posters, tbh.
 
I'm personally surprised that Cal cared enough to pursue the ACC, but it kind of works out for them. They still get to play P5 teams and get good recruits occassionally. Nobody really cares about the Olympic sports, so ... meh there.

The ACC did well. A 30% share is kind of robbery. Some extra travel for their teams, but overall, a win.

Stanford I think is the big loser in this. I didn't think they had to accept a 30% share, and if I was them, I certainly wouldn't have accepted the same number as Cal. I think there was a way for them to go independent. I do believe they honestly cared about their Olympic sports, but I think there was a way to do that independently that was logical.
 
Hitman Hart said:
if it impacted the GOR in a negative way, this wouldn't be happening. pretty obvious stuff.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, there was talk before (ACC raid on the BigEast/ SEC on the Big12) years ago about the contracts changing and needing to be rewritten if/when new members were added and also negating the GOR in the old contract then resigning a new one opening up an opportunity for schools to leave and that was around the time the ACC signed their GOR but that was a long time ago and I would assume the ACC (as well as others) have taken out that language but we don’t know all of those details and what lawyers may be froggy enough to try his/her luck with these new changes. They may argue the travel ect was never a part of the original deal. It’s a guess in my part but at the same time the conference could also be positioning itself for the 3 no votes to leave so when that day comes they have backfilled already with the best they can get. Strength in numbers.

If the ACC knows that there will be schools leaving when they can anyway then the move MIGHT be similar to what the Big12 did, take a big money buyout and still have enough schools to have a conference at all.
 
At this point, I don't see what the risk is for the ACC to approach UConn and ask them to join for peanuts too.

And UConn probably takes it.

They're a better add than SMU. Sure they field a high school football team but their basketball and geography make sense
 
Wild Turkey said:
I think you are grossly underestimating how badly they need that extra game.

ND is their number 1 revenue maker.
Click to expand...

I understand that aspect for sure. The ACC has also catered to ND's every move so I wouldn't be surprised if they do again here.
 
CoalTrain said:
Not necessarily, there was talk before (ACC raid on the BigEast/ SEC on the Big12) years ago about the contracts changing and needing to be rewritten if/when new members were added and also negating the GOR in the old contract then resigning a new one opening up an opportunity for schools to leave and that was around the time the ACC signed their GOR but that was a long time ago and I would assume the ACC (as well as others) have taken out that language but we don’t know all of those details and what lawyers may be froggy enough to try his/her luck with these new changes. They may argue the travel ect was never a part of the original deal. It’s a guess in my part but at the same time the conference could also be positioning itself for the 3 no votes to leave so when that day comes they have backfilled already with the best they can get. Strength in numbers.

If the ACC knows that there will be schools leaving when they can anyway then the move MIGHT be similar to what the Big12 did, take a big money buyout and still have enough schools to have a conference at all.
Click to expand...
Unless it was horribly written, and I doubt it was, no party can take any action that unilaterally would void a contract.

I’m confident that the grant of rights agreement anticipated the addition of more teams and then how that is handled is built into it.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Unless it was horribly written, and I doubt it was, no party can take any action that unilaterally would void a contract.

I’m confident that the grant of rights agreement anticipated the addition of more teams and then how that is handled is built into it.
Click to expand...
On the surface I agree 💯 but then.. I’m not sure what’s goin on behind the scenes with some of the thinking with these conferences now compared to the moves in the past.
I feel like there is information that hasn’t been made public yet or hasn’t developed just yet ect. but.. we’ll see long term. It’s terribly interesting trying to figure out the strategy of it all :laugh:
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Unless it was horribly written, and I doubt it was, no party can take any action that unilaterally would void a contract.

I’m confident that the grant of rights agreement anticipated the addition of more teams and then how that is handled is built into it.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty much a word for word copy of the B12 GOR.

If Texas and OU paid to get out ain’t no one getting out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top