USC and UCLA planning to leave for B10 by 2024!

[Hu War Yu]

Although it is getting more expansive, I think the SEC will generally stay in the Southeastern region and this is why they are not pursuing teams like Oregon or Notre Dame too heavily.

SEC can get away with the Texas-to-Florida span of states and be fine. Every team they have added has some connection to the Southeast even if it is a stretch.

The big fight will likely be over UNC-UVA.

I know it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but the old WAC could prove instructive on how difficult it will be to manage these massive conferences that span too many time zones. The old 16-team WAC that had Hawaii out West and Rice and Tulsa back East didn't last too long. Much of the dissatisfaction had to do with travel costs and logistics.

The comparison breaks down when we consider that the member schools in the BiG and SEC are already getting a lot more TV dough than those old WAC schools were getting, but everything else about the grueling travel schedules is valid. I hope everybody knows what they're signing up for.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I don't have all of the facts but my legal instincts say that winning in court will be a challenge. It was a contract that all parties signed onto.

The key argument against the GOR would be that the recent market changes as well as changes in the sports overall have created a hardship that makes the Contract unjustifiable to keep in place (also sometimes contracts do have language that allows them to be re-evaluated for drastic changes in the market).

So the ACC teams that would want to leave would have to argue that the Contract has now been made Unconscionable or Unjust based on the changes in the overall market.

Unfortunately, the contract is still profitable so I don't see that happening. You really have to show that you are losing money to make that work.

Now the one item that might open the door or at least be an argument a judge might entertain would be the fact that the current ACC contract has the potential to make the schools uncompetitive against the B1G and SEC. Even with this, it is a major uphill battle.

However, judges sometimes go with politics. Put the court in Tallahassee Florida and maybe an FSU alumni judge may rule with FSU. That might be their only shot is just win a political fight with the court.

In summary, it just doesn't look good to get out of the GOR.

So here is what I have learned from an article per an attorney(copying in @WhosYourDawggy so he doesn't get bent out of shape again about my sources) on the GOR:

1. Jurisdiction is a big issue with the GOR that can work in or not in the favor of any school filing a challenge but regardless will add months to suit.
2. Compensation is a big issue with the GOR because it could be argued that there is no compensation in exchange for the GOR which is necessary for a contract to be perfected. Now the ACC will argue that compensation was that the individual schools got stability but personally I think that is the weak link and can be defeated. It's kind of a problem that the schools weren't offered any additional compensation for the GOR and the decision was made out of fear or what could be argued duress.

I don't think you can truly win on a hardship claim but I'm sure attorneys will try to add that as well if someone files a suit.

Bottom line I don't think anyone actually attempts to defeat the GOR in court and it is going to take individual schools deciding it's in their best financial interest to leave and trying to convince others to vote to dissolve the GOR by vote. For that to happen a tremendous amount of work would have to be done behind the scenes and that is going almost be impossible to pull off unless something big happens.

Now we know that FSU and Clemson have opened the door since they made inquiries of the SEC after Texas and OU made their announcement so what to look for is other schools to do the same (this will signal negotiations are happening in order to get around the tampering issues). If you see GT, UVA or VT start making inquires then things are heating up but until them any talk of getting out of a GOR is bad speculation. Now @Thiefery will claim that the GOR is no big deal or schools can easily buy themselves out of it but all you have to do is look at Texas and OU and know that isn't the case or they would have announced they were entering the SEC early so any comments like that are crap.

 

[Red_Alert]

Josh Pate RT some tweet that said an anonymous AD in the ACC said, they'd figure out the GOR in court.. but they would actually lose more money staying in the ACC with the current deal than to just bolt to either the BiG or SEC

You're not looking at it right.
The GOR says if you leave, the ACC gets a $ buyout fee + your media rights payouts wherever you go.
i.e. A school gets Zero media rights revenue until the GOR expires in 2036.

That is why USC/UCLA aren't leaving the PAC until 2024 and why TX/OU aren't leaving the Big 12 until 2025.

In TX/OU's case, the $42 million/yr Big 12 payout is better than a $0 payout.

In USC/UCLA's case the $20 million/yr PAC 12 payout is better than a $0 payout.

In Notre Dame's case or any other ACC school, the $17 million ACC payout is better than a buyout fee + $0 payout.

Only a complete implosion of the Big 12, PAC, or ACC would negate those issues before expirations. Two years for the PAC (2024) and 3 years for the Big 12 (2025) is tolerable to stay put.

However, 14 years for the ACC is a massive kick in the balls for their 14 schools to stay put and eat shit sammiches. Eight schools would have to be part of that ACC implosion pre 2036. Since the ACC has obviously stepped on their dicks, I could see that happening.

Whatever happened to that "Alliance" thingy? Although nothing official came out, it was supposed to enhance media rights payouts via scheduling between the PAC, ACC, and Big 12. If there's still a form of that on the table, then that would be the only hope for the ACC as a whole and for any remaining Big 12/PAC 12 schools.

That's front office stuff. However, regarding media FOX and ESPN would have to play well together for the Big 12, PAC 12, and ACC to benefit from it.

 

[Red_Alert]

I won't disagree with that except that it isn't a given they would win in court. To my knowledge, no one has the latest copy of the ND/ACC agreement so anything written on that is speculation.

In fact, the only GOR for the ACC that can be found (to my knowledge) is the original which might have amendments by now.

If ND were to lose in court it would be a financial disaster and the ACC would own a chunk of what the B1G would pay them. They aren't going to make a move lightly and if they decide to do it more than likely they would settle with the ACC for some amount and buy themselves out. I just don't see them saying screw it and rolling the dice.

Yep. The only thing I can find is the 2013 copy.
Post #1 has part of it.
Post #2 has the full PDF.

ACC grant of rights explained

Posted by Andy Slater on Twitter for some context.

www.canesinsight.com

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

So here is what I have learned from an article per an attorney(copying in @WhosYourDawggy so he doesn't get bent out of shape again about my sources) on the GOR:

1. Jurisdiction is a big issue with the GOR that can work in or not in the favor of any school filing a challenge but regardless will add months to suit.
2. Compensation is a big issue with the GOR because it could be argued that there is no compensation in exchange for the GOR which is necessary for a contract to be perfected. Now the ACC will argue that compensation was that the individual schools got stability but personally I think that is the weak link and can be defeated. It's kind of a problem that the schools weren't offered any additional compensation for the GOR and the decision was made out of fear or what could be argued duress.

I don't think you can truly win on a hardship claim but I'm sure attorneys will try to add that as well if someone files a suit.

Bottom line I don't think anyone actually attempts to defeat the GOR in court and it is going to take individual schools deciding it's in their best financial interest to leave and trying to convince others to vote to dissolve the GOR by vote. For that to happen a tremendous amount of work would have to be done behind the scenes and that is going almost be impossible to pull off unless something big happens.

Now we know that FSU and Clemson have opened the door since they made inquiries of the SEC after Texas and OU made their announcement so what to look for is other schools to do the same (this will signal negotiations are happening in order to get around the tampering issues). If you see GT, UVA or VT start making inquires then things are heating up but until them any talk of getting out of a GOR is bad speculation. Now @Thiefery will claim that the GOR is no big deal or schools can easily buy themselves out of it but all you have to do is look at Texas and OU and know that isn't the case or they would have announced they were entering the SEC early so any comments like that are crap.

FWIW, I didn't get "bent out of shape." You literally posted as if you had come up with some genius legal analysis about 30 minutes after I had read the article from which (1) you "obtained" the copy of the GOR, and (2) simply summarized the legal analysis of 1 attorney as if it was your own. You should have just taken the L on that one as I would not have brought it back up until you had to take a dig at me pointing out your ridiculous post. How hard is it to simply attribute the thought to the person who came up with it, and not act like it was your own thinking? Just take the L on that one and move on.

As for your analysis here, it's absurd. The lawyer interviewed is simply pointing out the ways one attacks any contract ... he doesn't say it would be successful. This is boilerplate, Contracts 101. You try to show inadequate consideration, fraud, that the terms are vague and therefore unenforceable, duress, or unequal bargaining position. None of these apply here. First, understand that when the ACC teams signed this GOR, they had just had Maryland leave the conference. Why is that important? Because it means that the GOR wasn't signed covering some theoretical scenario ... it was drafted and signed based on events that had just happened and that all the parties to the GOR wanted to avoid in the future. Every school knew what they were signing and why .... the stability of the conference was desired and they were willing to sign away their media rights to ensure that. They had tons of lawyers look over the agreements, so there is no fraud and everyone was adequately represented and informed of the ramifications of signing the GOR.

As to consideration, I just grabbed the first thing I googled:

What is consideration in a contract?
The legal definition of consideration is based on the concept of a “bargained-for exchange.” This means that both parties are getting something that they’ve agreed to, usually something of value for something of value.

What are the requirements of consideration?
Consideration is an essential part of a valid contract with its own requirements. For consideration, itself, to be valid, each party to the contract typically must do one of the following:

- Make a promise to the other party.
- Perform an act (such as provide a service).
- Agree not to do something.

Each party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something is usually in exchange for the other party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something.

Whatever it is that a party promises, performs, or agrees not to do must typically have some value that can be recognized by law. The value does not have to be monetary, or anything that would be recognized as having value by most people. Generally speaking, if a party accepts a promise, performance, or forbears from doing (agrees not to do) something they have a right to do, the promise, performance or forbearance may be found to have some legally-recognized value.

It's crystal clear that there was consideration in that each school promised to the other that they would stay in the conference until 2036 to maintain economic stability of the conference. Parties made promises to one another, and agreed to not do something. The idea there is no economic benefit to this is absurd ... if a team is allowed to leave and go to another conference they will get a ton more money, and the teams left behind will get a ton less money.

Contracts 101: What Is Consideration?

Consideration is part of what makes a contract a contract. Find out what it means and why it's important when creating a legal agreement between two parties.

www.rocketlawyer.com

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Whatever happened to that "Alliance" thingy? Although nothing official came out, it was supposed to enhance media rights payouts via scheduling between the PAC, ACC, and Big 12. If there's still a form of that on the table, then that would be the only hope for the ACC as a whole and for any remaining Big 12/PAC 12 schools.

It was never an official agreement - the PAC or ACC commissioner was quoted as saying something like, we didn't need an agreement. We looked each other in the eye and shook hands. That should be a firing offense if you ask me.

 

[Volbound1700]

FWIW, I didn't get "bent out of shape." You literally posted as if you had come up with some genius legal analysis about 30 minutes after I had read the article from which (1) you "obtained" the copy of the GOR, and (2) simply summarized the legal analysis of 1 attorney as if it was your own. You should have just taken the L on that one as I would not have brought it back up until you had to take a dig at me pointing out your ridiculous post. How hard is it to simply attribute the thought to the person who came up with it, and not act like it was your own thinking? Just take the L on that one and move on.

As for your analysis here, it's absurd. The lawyer interviewed is simply pointing out the ways one attacks any contract ... he doesn't say it would be successful. This is boilerplate, Contracts 101. You try to show inadequate consideration, fraud, that the terms are vague and therefore unenforceable, duress, or unequal bargaining position. None of these apply here. First, understand that when the ACC teams signed this GOR, they had just had Maryland leave the conference. Why is that important? Because it means that the GOR wasn't signed covering some theoretical scenario ... it was drafted and signed based on events that had just happened and that all the parties to the GOR wanted to avoid in the future. Every school knew what they were signing and why .... the stability of the conference was desired and they were willing to sign away their media rights to ensure that. They had tons of lawyers look over the agreements, so there is no fraud and everyone was adequately represented and informed of the ramifications of signing the GOR.

As to consideration, I just grabbed the first thing I googled:

What is consideration in a contract?
The legal definition of consideration is based on the concept of a “bargained-for exchange.” This means that both parties are getting something that they’ve agreed to, usually something of value for something of value.

What are the requirements of consideration?
Consideration is an essential part of a valid contract with its own requirements. For consideration, itself, to be valid, each party to the contract typically must do one of the following:

- Make a promise to the other party.
- Perform an act (such as provide a service).
- Agree not to do something.

Each party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something is usually in exchange for the other party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something.

Whatever it is that a party promises, performs, or agrees not to do must typically have some value that can be recognized by law. The value does not have to be monetary, or anything that would be recognized as having value by most people. Generally speaking, if a party accepts a promise, performance, or forbears from doing (agrees not to do) something they have a right to do, the promise, performance or forbearance may be found to have some legally-recognized value.

It's crystal clear that there was consideration in that each school promised to the other that they would stay in the conference until 2036 to maintain economic stability of the conference. Parties made promises to one another,

and agreed to not do something. The idea there is no economic benefit to this is absurd ... if a team is allowed to leave and go to another conference they will get a ton more money, and the teams left behind will get a ton less money.

Contracts 101: What Is Consideration?

Consideration is part of what makes a contract a contract. Find out what it means and why it's important when creating a legal agreement between two parties.

www.rocketlawyer.com

This is my understanding as well but I am not sure why you and @Wild Turkey are arguing because you both agreed on same point that the GOR is hard (if not impossible) to break. Other posters in this thread have been saying it is easy to break.

 

[Kburjr]

Just get the damn season started fer chissakes

 

[Hu War Yu]

Just get the damn season started fer chissakes

YEAHHH!!! Enuffa this legal mumbo jumbo

 

[Wild Turkey]

i'm pretty sure that it wasn't a ND source he was talking about.

As far as the GOR.. I don't know how a court could vote in favor of a deal that was horrendous and keeps getting worse every year. Like there isn't any option BUT to leave if the ACC cannot get ESPN to renegotiate it's current agreement

All you have to do is look at construction law and you will see how the court would most likely rule.

Have a busted estimate - too bad.
Materials have gone up - too bad.

They signed the deal, they knew the length and they are stuck because the court isn't going to let them out on that one. The ACC's best move is to convince the networks that it is in their best interest or the league is going to fold if they don't renegotiate. That might work because if the ACC gets swallowed by the B1G and SEC there is potentially a chunk of programming that will be lost. The question is how much is that programming worth and does it make sense for the networks. They would be making a bet on the future and it might not be worth it

 

[ralphiewvu]

Yep. The only thing I can find is the 2013 copy.
Post #1 has part of it.
Post #2 has the full PDF.

ACC grant of rights explained

Posted by Andy Slater on Twitter for some context.

www.canesinsight.com

Somebody stated it only takes 8 schools to leave to blow up the GoR. If that’s true then I can’t imagine they already don’t have that if over 20 is what the SEC and B1G want. I’m really not sure what other conference the SEC would pull from And Ga tech it feels like would love the idea of going to the B1G. UNC won’t have have a choice if 7 others are already in. But I could see them prolonging it Also.

This is really the quickest way to get out of this ACC GoR if it is indeed only 8 schools to vote it down.

 

[Volbound1700]

Somebody stated it only takes 8 schools to leave to blow up the GoR. If that’s true then I can’t imagine they already don’t have that if over 20 is what the SEC and B1G want. I’m really not sure what other conference the SEC would pull from And Ga tech it feels like would love the idea of going to the B1G. UNC won’t have have a choice if 7 others are already in. But I could see them prolonging it Also.

This is really the quickest way to get out of this ACC GoR if it is indeed only 8 schools to vote it down.

I agree with 8 schools but I don't think there are 8 schools wanting to leave ACC right now. Also, they would have to vote to dissolve the conference first. That is another major hurdle as well.

The only truly marketable teams in the ACC are Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UNC, and perhaps Virginia. The rest of the league is not that marketable, not on the level to have value in adding them prior to 2035. Even some of the marketable programs above may not be worth it.

All eyes are on Notre Dame. ACC has some time right now to stay alive.

 

[Wild Turkey]

FWIW, I didn't get "bent out of shape." You literally posted as if you had come up with some genius legal analysis about 30 minutes after I had read the article from which (1) you "obtained" the copy of the GOR, and (2) simply summarized the legal analysis of 1 attorney as if it was your own. You should have just taken the L on that one as I would not have brought it back up until you had to take a dig at me pointing out your ridiculous post. How hard is it to simply attribute the thought to the person who came up with it, and not act like it was your own thinking? Just take the L on that one and move on.

As for your analysis here, it's absurd. The lawyer interviewed is simply pointing out the ways one attacks any contract ... he doesn't say it would be successful. This is boilerplate, Contracts 101. You try to show inadequate consideration, fraud, that the terms are vague and therefore unenforceable, duress, or unequal bargaining position. None of these apply here. First, understand that when the ACC teams signed this GOR, they had just had Maryland leave the conference. Why is that important? Because it means that the GOR wasn't signed covering some theoretical scenario ... it was drafted and signed based on events that had just happened and that all the parties to the GOR wanted to avoid in the future. Every school knew what they were signing and why .... the stability of the conference was desired and they were willing to sign away their media rights to ensure that. They had tons of lawyers look over the agreements, so there is no fraud and everyone was adequately represented and informed of the ramifications of signing the GOR.

As to consideration, I just grabbed the first thing I googled:

What is consideration in a contract?
The legal definition of consideration is based on the concept of a “bargained-for exchange.” This means that both parties are getting something that they’ve agreed to, usually something of value for something of value.

What are the requirements of consideration?
Consideration is an essential part of a valid contract with its own requirements. For consideration, itself, to be valid, each party to the contract typically must do one of the following:

- Make a promise to the other party.
- Perform an act (such as provide a service).
- Agree not to do something.

Each party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something is usually in exchange for the other party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something.

Whatever it is that a party promises, performs, or agrees not to do must typically have some value that can be recognized by law. The value does not have to be monetary, or anything that would be recognized as having value by most people. Generally speaking, if a party accepts a promise, performance, or forbears from doing (agrees not to do) something they have a right to do, the promise, performance or forbearance may be found to have some legally-recognized value.

It's crystal clear that there was consideration in that each school promised to the other that they would stay in the conference until 2036 to maintain economic stability of the conference. Parties made promises to one another, and agreed to not do something. The idea there is no economic benefit to this is absurd ... if a team is allowed to leave and go to another conference they will get a ton more money, and the teams left behind will get a ton less money.

Contracts 101: What Is Consideration?

Consideration is part of what makes a contract a contract. Find out what it means and why it's important when creating a legal agreement between two parties.

www.rocketlawyer.com

No one needed your contract law lesson:

The consideration point was that there was no additional economic benefit other than the potential of stability. For example, they did not get any more money than they were going to get based on the contracts as they were and the conference didn't really perform additional "acts" or services. So I would agree that the schools gave consideration up for the contract (promise and agree not to do anything) but the conference itself didn't really give any additional consideration back to the schools other than what they were going to do anyway. So there is an argument that the schools didn't receive anything of value in the exchange.

Basically, the conference itself didn't do anything new or different and received the school's GOR for stability which is also arguably flawed.

How weak an argument that is would be up to the courts but like I said I don't see anyone paying millions in legal fees to argue it as the consequences of getting it wrong would be massive. If my analysis is absurd then you are taking the position that the GOR can be broken because I stated the opposite of that.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

No one needed your contract law lesson:

The consideration point was that there was no additional economic benefit other than the potential of stability. For example, they did not get any more money than they were going to get based on the contracts as they were and the conference didn't really perform additional "acts" or services. So I would agree that the schools gave consideration up for the contract (promise and agree not to do anything) but the conference itself didn't really give any additional consideration back to the schools other than what they were going to do anyway. So there is an argument that the schools didn't receive anything of value in the exchange.

Basically, the conference itself didn't do anything new or different and received the school's GOR for stability which is also arguably flawed.

How weak an argument that is would be up to the courts but like I said I don't see anyone paying millions in legal fees to argue it as the consequences of getting it wrong would be massive. If my analysis is absurd then you are taking the position that the GOR can be broken because I stated the opposite of that.

LOL, it appears you did need the lesson. Take it again.

 

[Wild Turkey]

FWIW, I didn't get "bent out of shape." You literally posted as if you had come up with some genius legal analysis about 30 minutes after I had read the article from which (1) you "obtained" the copy of the GOR, and (2) simply summarized the legal analysis of 1 attorney as if it was your own. You should have just taken the L on that one as I would not have brought it back up until you had to take a dig at me pointing out your ridiculous post. How hard is it to simply attribute the thought to the person who came up with it, and not act like it was your own thinking? Just take the L on that one and move on.

As for your analysis here, it's absurd. The lawyer interviewed is simply pointing out the ways one attacks any contract ... he doesn't say it would be successful. This is boilerplate, Contracts 101. You try to show inadequate consideration, fraud, that the terms are vague and therefore unenforceable, duress, or unequal bargaining position. None of these apply here. First, understand that when the ACC teams signed this GOR, they had just had Maryland leave the conference. Why is that important? Because it means that the GOR wasn't signed covering some theoretical scenario ... it was drafted and signed based on events that had just happened and that all the parties to the GOR wanted to avoid in the future. Every school knew what they were signing and why .... the stability of the conference was desired and they were willing to sign away their media rights to ensure that. They had tons of lawyers look over the agreements, so there is no fraud and everyone was adequately represented and informed of the ramifications of signing the GOR.

As to consideration, I just grabbed the first thing I googled:

What is consideration in a contract?
The legal definition of consideration is based on the concept of a “bargained-for exchange.” This means that both parties are getting something that they’ve agreed to, usually something of value for something of value.

What are the requirements of consideration?
Consideration is an essential part of a valid contract with its own requirements. For consideration, itself, to be valid, each party to the contract typically must do one of the following:

- Make a promise to the other party.
- Perform an act (such as provide a service).
- Agree not to do something.

Each party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something is usually in exchange for the other party’s promise, performance, or agreement not to do something.

Whatever it is that a party promises, performs, or agrees not to do must typically have some value that can be recognized by law. The value does not have to be monetary, or anything that would be recognized as having value by most people. Generally speaking, if a party accepts a promise, performance, or forbears from doing (agrees not to do) something they have a right to do, the promise, performance or forbearance may be found to have some legally-recognized value.

It's crystal clear that there was consideration in that each school promised to the other that they would stay in the conference until 2036 to maintain economic stability of the conference. Parties made promises to one another, and agreed to not do something. The idea there is no economic benefit to this is absurd ... if a team is allowed to leave and go to another conference they will get a ton more money, and the teams left behind will get a ton less money.

Contracts 101: What Is Consideration?

Consideration is part of what makes a contract a contract. Find out what it means and why it's important when creating a legal agreement between two parties.

www.rocketlawyer.com

For the record, you did get bent out of shape and then you doubled down.

Congrats.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

For the record, you did get bent out of shape and then you doubled down.

Congrats.

Damn ... just take the L dude. Why do you want to keep bringing up the fact that you plagiarized the shit out of an article and tried to pass it on as your thoughts and ideas? Just let it go.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I agree with 8 schools but I don't think there are 8 schools wanting to leave ACC right now. Also, they would have to vote to dissolve the conference first. That is another major hurdle as well.

The only truly marketable teams in the ACC are Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UNC, and perhaps Virginia. The rest of the league is not that marketable, not on the level to have value in adding them prior to 2035. Even some of the marketable programs above may not be worth it.

All eyes are on Notre Dame. ACC has some time right now to stay alive.

I’d argue there are 13 right now that would if given an oppportunity by the B1G and SEC With UNC being the one wanting to hang on to its clout. But I get your point and likely right now they wouldn’t get 8. I really don’t see it as a hurdle to dissolve if they do in fact have 8 universities leaving. If it saves them a ton of money that’ll be a no brainer.

I agree there aren’t many marketable teams in the ACC and this scenario only works if the B1G and SEC truly want to go to over 20 teams a pop.

The question I also have is what the heck happens to Oregon, Washington and Stanford if the Az Schools and Colorado/Utah bail to the B12 in 2024 and ND says let’s wait a few more years?

 

[Volbound1700]

I’d argue there are 13 right now that would if given an oppportunity by the B1G and SEC With UNC being the one wanting to hang on to its clout. But I get your point and likely right now they wouldn’t get 8. I really don’t see it as a hurdle to dissolve if they do in fact have 8 universities leaving. If it saves them a ton of money that’ll be a no brainer.

I agree there aren’t many marketable teams in the ACC and this scenario only works if the B1G and SEC truly want to go to over 20 teams a pop.

The question I also have is what the heck happens to Oregon, Washington and Stanford if the Az Schools and Colorado/Utah bail to the B12 in 2024 and ND says let’s wait a few more years?

Oregon and Washington go to Big12.

I think Cal-Stanford will eventually drop out of Division I football and perhaps move their Olympic Sports to another league like the West Coast Conference. Neither were very strong Football Powers. Sad to see it go though.

Stanford still has a shot thanks to its connection to Notre Dame plus it is kind of hard to not imagine the B1G not wanting to have a presence in Northern California. They also provide a closer travel buddy for USC and UCLA.

 

[Red_Alert]

My understanding is the only one that can fix the ACC's economic woes is ESPN.

They can renegotiate the fiscal year tv deal.

A renegotiation of the actual GOR deal would be within conference.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Damn ... just take the L dude. Why do you want to keep bringing up the fact that you plagiarized the shit out of an article and tried to pass it on as your thoughts and ideas? Just let it go.

That's the thing that isn't really what I was doing.

That was a long post and it really had to do with what I thought expansion would look like to explain why I felt that way I explained some of the GOR stuff that I had read. It really wasn't a GOR post as it was which conference is going to what team and why I felt that way.

I read so much shit on a daily basis sports and non-sports I can't remember where I read the shit. That's not plagiarization it's conversation on an internet board. You took that shit way too seriously.

I will say it was a good article and the fact it had PDFs of the GORs was pretty damn interesting as well. I just read the ACC's but the B12 and B1G's were up there also I think.