(Yesterday 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

(Yesterday 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 09:37 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(Yesterday 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(Yesterday 08:51 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:34 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Maybe there are things within the "mysterious" ACC-ESPN agreement that, if revealed, would not be favorable to the cause of the ACC office?

Everyone involved in the case has the contract. The only people that haven't seen it are those not directly involved in the case. So it's not really mysterious. FSU just wants it available because they want to fight in the court of public opinion. They have a weak case so that's their best hope for a favorable settlement.

Seems to me that the only way having the contract available would help FSU in the court of public opinion is if there is something strange about the contract.

There isn't anything strange about it, FSU just wants it out there because the ACC/ESPN don't want it out there, and perhaps they think the threat of that will force an early settlement. The ACC will drag their feet because FSU wants to get to a settlement quickly and the conference has absolutely no reason to do that.

It's just going to be a long, messy process. One thing I've noticed how both the FLA judge and now the AG are making this about FLA vs THEM. It's ego-fueled and they're taking it personally, maybe because most of the country thinks that state is a joke. I dunno.

FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.

Beyond that, I think Florida is a fantastic state, at least the equal of North Carolina, which I think is a pretty cool state too. I doubt that many outside of Biden-hotbed (are there any such places these days?) areas look down on Florida, but maybe we need a poll.

We'll see.

Well NC has it's share of crazy I'll grant you that. But I mean think about it, you've got a high profile crazy "Orange Man" ex down there and a governor that totally **** the bed in a national campaign. Combine that with the very humorous if unfair "Florida Man" thing and your state wins the contest hands down.

(Yesterday 11:16 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Well NC has it's share of crazy I'll grant you that.
....

The CW is an emerging College Football Broadcast and all….

The fact that the most viewed game on The CW in 2023 was North Alabama at FSU, makes me a believer in FSU carries the ACC viewership.

Clemson at NC State got half the number North Alabama at FSU. (Granted, every week is different. I don’t know what the competing games were for the time slot. Very easy to dismiss the claim if you want to)

Still shocked

(Yesterday 11:06 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Yesterday 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

When the best interests of a group are in conflict with a subset of that group the best interests of the majority are the ones the group sides with. I wouldn't think that concept would be so evasive. Preyer, like so many at the unhappy schools miss the point that schools in a conference aren't "lesser or greater" but equals. If he has a problem with it he needs to find more like minded schools until he has a block that can alter the balance.

(Yesterday 11:32 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

The CW is an emerging College Football Broadcast and all….

The fact that the most viewed game on The CW in 2023 was North Alabama at FSU, makes me a believer in FSU carries the ACC viewership.

Clemson at NC State got half the number North Alabama at FSU. (Granted, every week is different. I don’t know what the competing games were for the time slot. Very easy to dismiss the claim if you want to)

Still shocked

I’m shocked at the UVa-Carolina game; I didn’t expect it to be that high.

The FSU game makes sense because it was deep into an undefeated season. Frankly, it didn’t matter who they were playing. Although, I remember specifically flipping to it because it was pretty close for a few quarters.

(Yesterday 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(Yesterday 11:06 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Yesterday 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

When the best interests of a group are in conflict with a subset of that group the best interests of the majority are the ones the group sides with. I wouldn't think that concept would be so evasive. Preyer, like so many at the unhappy schools miss the point that schools in a conference aren't "lesser or greater" but equals. If he has a problem with it he needs to find more like minded schools until he has a block that can alter the balance.

An organization’s managers are accountable to all dues paying members whether or not they are part of a subset or clique therein. A commissioner is to work in behalf of the collective and not a fraction of it. Impacting documents, negotiated and signed by a commissioner or his/her designees, need to be shared with all the membership, for approval beforehand. Access by each member to signed documents is not a negotiated factor, and a commissioner has no inherent rights to withhold that information from any and all members.

Any meeting called whereby there are discussions, decision-making, and formal voting, need to have notice, invitations, and access to all members, inclusive of those who have expressed intentions to eventually leave and/or filed lawsuits against the organization. They are still entitled to privileges afforded to others, and retain voting rights for all business until they have submitted resignation letters with termination dates.

All this is what Clemson is complaining about; and they have the high road.

(Yesterday 01:28 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(Yesterday 11:35 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(Yesterday 11:06 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Yesterday 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I think a long messy process works for FSU moreso than the ACC. The psychology of that IMO favors FSU, as the media wisdom about the GOR is that it is supposed to be an unchallengeable, ironclad thing such that anyone who runs in to it will got swatted down summarily in court.

if the judges involved start to treat this as an actual case, one with two sides that have to be thoroughly explored, rather than a slam-dunk, GOR is valid, ACC wins kind of thing, then that destabilizes the ACC even more, I think. So maybe FSU is challenging the contract availability because it gums the works up even more.
....

The process has been messy enough so far, I'd say, that the ACC credibility erosion you mention has begun. The grant of rights has been hyped for years as a sort of contractual Doomsday weapon. Now, when tested, the ACC isn't producing the killer document that smacks down challenges at once with a mighty GoR fist. On the contrary: the ACC is running from subpoenas, filing motions to seal, and claiming authorisation by its membership in meetings it has no record of.

It's not a good look. People notice.

One person who notices is John Preyer, chair of the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees. He recently said this:

"I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy. I don't see how it is in anyone's interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that's kind of the case Clemson is making.

"I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it's really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they're doing. I think that's just obvious."

When the best interests of a group are in conflict with a subset of that group the best interests of the majority are the ones the group sides with. I wouldn't think that concept would be so evasive. Preyer, like so many at the unhappy schools miss the point that schools in a conference aren't "lesser or greater" but equals. If he has a problem with it he needs to find more like minded schools until he has a block that can alter the balance.

An organization’s managers are accountable to all dues paying members whether or not they are part of a subset or clique therein. A commissioner is to work in behalf of the collective and not a fraction of it. Impacting documents, negotiated and signed by a commissioner or his/her designees, need to be shared with all the membership, for approval beforehand. Access by each member to signed documents is not a negotiated factor, and a commissioner has no inherent rights to withhold that information from any and all members.

Any meeting called whereby there are discussions, decision-making, and formal voting, need to have notice, invitations, and access to all members, inclusive of those who have expressed intentions to eventually leave and/or filed lawsuits against the organization. They are still entitled to privileges afforded to others, and retain voting rights for all business until they have submitted resignation letters with termination dates.

All this is what Clemson is complaining about; and they have the high road.

We'll certainly know a lot more about the Clemson suit against the ACC and the ACC's suit against Clemson during the first week of May when both sides have to submit multiple types of paper work to courts in SC and in NC.

(Yesterday 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:28 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The idea that the ACC is seeking its number (lets call it $350 million) in this case and believes that it has a good chance of hitting that number if it holds out in the litigation for a good while, but instead is "pressured" by a non-party to settle quickly and for only, say, $75 million seems a message board idea, not a real life litigation one.

Everyone is telling me on message boards and Twitter that the ACC is fooked no matter what.

That FSU, Clemson, NC will leave, no matter what. That the ACC will be parceled out or greatly diminished.

So, what is the great benefit to the ACC to settle low and fast?

Why not try to get the highest amount possible in these lawsuits?

Why not try to get it high enough to deter someone from trying to get out of the GOR?

Would not the ACC strategy be to set the bar for settlement/leaving higher than lower, just as a matter of logic and common sense ?

@TerryD

Which ACC schools would need to stay put for the Notre Dame Fightin' Independents (and its tagalongs in other sports as well as the university itself) to remain committed to its current relationship with the conference?

I don't think the composition of the leftover/backfilled ACC is as important to ND as the fact that some sort of ACC remains to help ND to stay a football independent.

From day one, that was the main value of the ACC to ND. That will not change.

Whomever is left and whomever is backfilled will likely be good enough for ND's purposes.

BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech, Stanford, SMU, Cal, maybe backfilled with UConn and Tulane.

Good enough basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc...

Maybe use the turmoil leverage to reduce the football commitment to three games a year, maybe 4.

If you recall, ND wasn't the first school to leave the Big East, was it? It was one of the last ones.

Then, it only moved when another partial membership opportunity opened up.

Is that instructive on how ND might think and act, or not?

(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)


Why do people think that ND will bolt after shaping things just the way it wants ???

I’d be using that turmoil to leverage an increased ACC payout. You can still easily fill your schedule with enough USC/A&M/Michigan/etc games to keep the SOS high.

(Yesterday 02:23 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:28 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-25-2024 04:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The idea that the ACC is seeking its number (lets call it $350 million) in this case and believes that it has a good chance of hitting that number if it holds out in the litigation for a good while, but instead is "pressured" by a non-party to settle quickly and for only, say, $75 million seems a message board idea, not a real life litigation one.

Everyone is telling me on message boards and Twitter that the ACC is fooked no matter what.

That FSU, Clemson, NC will leave, no matter what. That the ACC will be parceled out or greatly diminished.

So, what is the great benefit to the ACC to settle low and fast?

Why not try to get the highest amount possible in these lawsuits?

Why not try to get it high enough to deter someone from trying to get out of the GOR?

Would not the ACC strategy be to set the bar for settlement/leaving higher than lower, just as a matter of logic and common sense ?

@TerryD

Which ACC schools would need to stay put for the Notre Dame Fightin' Independents (and its tagalongs in other sports as well as the university itself) to remain committed to its current relationship with the conference?

I don't think the composition of the leftover/backfilled ACC is as important to ND as the fact that some sort of ACC remains to help ND to stay a football independent.

From day one, that was the main value of the ACC to ND. That will not change.

Whomever is left and whomever is backfilled will likely be good enough for ND's purposes.

BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech, Stanford, SMU, Cal, maybe backfilled with UConn and Tulane.

Good enough basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc...

Maybe use the turmoil leverage to reduce the football commitment to three games a year, maybe 4.

If you recall, ND wasn't the first school to leave the Big East, was it? It was one of the last ones.

Then, it only moved when another partial membership opportunity opened up.

Is that instructive on how ND might think and act, or not?

(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)


Why do people think that ND will bolt after shaping things just the way it wants ???

I’d be using that turmoil to leverage an increased ACC payout. You can still easily fill your schedule with enough USC/A&M/Michigan/etc games to keep the SOS high.

ND doesn't need any more money from the ACC...or from anywhere. it is sitting extremely pretty, financially.

It may need an extra game per year to schedule schools from elsewhere than the ACC, though.

(Yesterday 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ....
(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)
....

(Other than, you know, that Stanford/Cal/SMU thing?)

I agree that ND looks ready to stay around a while and play den mother to a league in transition. As long as it does, the ACC should hold together despite the changes. The den mother will have a lot of say about the kind of league the ACC transitions into, gathering playmates to its liking.

All bets are off should ND eventually decide its fortunes lie elsewhere. I'm not sure the ACC conference network would remain viable after that. The loss of that resource would probably destabilise things.

The M level is likely due for a lot more churn and metamorphosis before it settles.

(Yesterday 02:53 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(Yesterday 06:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ....
(Has anyone noticed that ND has not made one word, move or sign that it is interested in making any type of change? Quite the contrary, in fact?)
....

(Other than, you know, that Stanford/Cal/SMU thing?)

I agree that ND looks ready to stay around a while and play den mother to a league in transition. As long as it does, the ACC should hold together despite the changes. The den mother will have a lot of say about the kind of league the ACC transitions into, gathering playmates to its liking.

All bets are off should ND eventually decide its fortunes lie elsewhere. I'm not sure the ACC conference network would remain viable after that. The loss of that resource would probably destabilise things.

The M level is likely due for a lot more churn and metamorphosis before it settles.

You know, Terry, Notre Dame can pick up 3 more ACC games and compete for the ACC fb championship. They were excellent doing that the Covid year. The ACC would be ecstatic. They would be, perhaps, the solid P #3. The BIG would be quite disturbed. The SEC would smile. The B12 would say damn!

Come on, just 3 more ACC fb opponents! That’s not asking much, and it would bring extensive happiness.