(03-21-2024 06:09 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  We also know that Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and BC were in favor of filing a lawsuit against FSU without a full vote; That's according to a sworn affidavit by the UVA president.

We also know that at least 5 schools that were in favor of the special January meeting to approve the ACC's amended suit against FSU: Miami, Pitt, Louisville, GT and incoming member SMU.

There are obviously enough votes to countersue Clemson, so I don't see how there wouldn't be enough to sue FSU.

(03-21-2024 06:09 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  We also know that Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and BC were in favor of filing a lawsuit against FSU without a full vote; That's according to a sworn affidavit by the UVA president.
We also know that at least 5 schools that were in favor of the special January meeting to approve the ACC's amended suit against FSU: Miami, Pitt, Louisville, GT and incoming member SMU.

So that leaves Clemson, FSU, UNC, NCSU and Notre Dame.

And it's HILARIOUS to see how certain UNC fans are have slowly changed their tune over time. UNC leadership is finally starting to show their true selves. What's playing out in real-time is the classic "good cop / bad cop" technique.

(03-21-2024 08:30 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 06:09 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  We also know that Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and BC were in favor of filing a lawsuit against FSU without a full vote; That's according to a sworn affidavit by the UVA president.
We also know that at least 5 schools that were in favor of the special January meeting to approve the ACC's amended suit against FSU: Miami, Pitt, Louisville, GT and incoming member SMU.

So that leaves Clemson, FSU, UNC, NCSU and Notre Dame.

And it's HILARIOUS to see how certain UNC fans are have slowly changed their tune over time. UNC leadership is finally starting to show their true selves.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between what people believe will happen and what they want to happen.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I have been very open about both over the years. Carolina is the #2 brand outside the B18/SEC behind Notre Dame. They 100% deserve to make more money than a myriad of B18 and SEC schools. I want Carolina to make up ground while still playing the teams we actually care about in the ACC. I believe the university will go about making that money in the way they have to, because they deserve it.

No tune changing here.

As to leadership, well bub, I have news for you as someone who has actually worked in academia. University leadership everywhere is out to make as much money as possible, especially trustees:

A member of a board elected or appointed to direct the funds and policy of an institution.

What makes you think they wouldn't want more funds to direct? lol

(03-21-2024 08:41 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 08:30 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 06:09 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  We also know that Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and BC were in favor of filing a lawsuit against FSU without a full vote; That's according to a sworn affidavit by the UVA president.
We also know that at least 5 schools that were in favor of the special January meeting to approve the ACC's amended suit against FSU: Miami, Pitt, Louisville, GT and incoming member SMU.

So that leaves Clemson, FSU, UNC, NCSU and Notre Dame.

And it's HILARIOUS to see how certain UNC fans are have slowly changed their tune over time. UNC leadership is finally starting to show their true selves.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between what people believe will happen and what they want to happen.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I have been very open about both over the years. Carolina is the #2 brand outside the B18/SEC behind Notre Dame. They 100% deserve to make more money than a myriad of B18 and SEC schools. I want Carolina to make up ground while still playing the teams we actually care about in the ACC. I believe the university will go about making that money in the way they have to, because they deserve it.

No tune changing here.

As to leadership, well bub, I have news for you as someone who has actually worked in academia. University leadership everywhere is out to make as much money as possible, especially trustees:

A member of a board elected or appointed to direct the funds and policy of an institution.

What makes you think they wouldn't want more funds to direct? lol

Yet you root for "olde ironclad".

(03-21-2024 08:43 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 08:41 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 08:30 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 06:09 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  We also know that Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and BC were in favor of filing a lawsuit against FSU without a full vote; That's according to a sworn affidavit by the UVA president.
We also know that at least 5 schools that were in favor of the special January meeting to approve the ACC's amended suit against FSU: Miami, Pitt, Louisville, GT and incoming member SMU.

So that leaves Clemson, FSU, UNC, NCSU and Notre Dame.

And it's HILARIOUS to see how certain UNC fans are have slowly changed their tune over time. UNC leadership is finally starting to show their true selves.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between what people believe will happen and what they want to happen.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I have been very open about both over the years. Carolina is the #2 brand outside the B18/SEC behind Notre Dame. They 100% deserve to make more money than a myriad of B18 and SEC schools. I want Carolina to make up ground while still playing the teams we actually care about in the ACC. I believe the university will go about making that money in the way they have to, because they deserve it.

No tune changing here.

As to leadership, well bub, I have news for you as someone who has actually worked in academia. University leadership everywhere is out to make as much money as possible, especially trustees:

A member of a board elected or appointed to direct the funds and policy of an institution.

What makes you think they wouldn't want more funds to direct? lol

Yet you root for "olde ironclad".

Hahaha! Yes, I find that funny as well. That's what I want, remember?

Just like when I make my picks: I want Dook to lose every game. Doesn't mean I believe they will.

And no, thankfully I've never worked in academia. I've worked around enough different types of people to know duplicity when I see it.

(03-21-2024 08:50 AM)b2b Wrote:  And no, thankfully I've never worked in academia. I've worked around enough different types of people to know duplicity when I see it.

Of course you will never find duplicity in the private sector nor will you find it in government.

(03-21-2024 08:54 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 08:50 AM)b2b Wrote:  And no, thankfully I've never worked in academia. I've worked around enough different types of people to know duplicity when I see it.

Of course you will never find duplicity in the private sector nor will you find it in government.

Of course you'll find it anywhere. That's what I'm saying. Anybody living in NC who isn't a UNC alum or t-shirt fan knows what the "Carolina Way" really means. It's just hilarious to me to see how angry and offended UNC fans were over FSU when we've all known what's happening behind the scenes.

(03-21-2024 06:21 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Sounds like Bubba Cunningham won't be employed much longer at least not in Chapel Hill

Initial quotes on the day UNC announces it's going to the SEC:

John Preyer: "Carolina is going where it belongs — to a conference fully committed to successfully competing at the very highest level of college athletics."

Bubba Cunningham: "First things first: I just feel so bad for Wake Forest and Boston College."

The ACC is officially on life support. Crystal ball says...

First Wave:

(events happening in the year 2024)

1.) Florida State and Clemson pay exits fees to the ACC for their absence during 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 athletic seasons because both schools will join the SEC starting with the 2025-2026 season.

2.) ESPN has to allow both schools to join the SEC (otherwise they would join the Big Ten) and as a result, ESPN does not renew the ACC contract and lets it expire on July 1, 2027.

Second Wave:

(events happening in the years 2025-2026)

3.) There is a fight for the states/markets of Virginia and North Carolina. The Big Ten and SEC will agree to a private compromise rather than even more publicly lord over the landscape of college sports. The SEC will take UNC and NC State. The Big Ten will take Virginia and the fate of Virginia Tech will be undecided (but not fought over) at this point.

4.) The ACC is now a smoldering crater with Louisville and Miami headlining. But seen as a "headliner" the SEC accepts Louisville and the Big Ten accepts Miami. For those keeping score, the Big Ten and SEC now have 20 schools each.

SEC 20
Tennessee / Vanderbilt
Kentucky / Louisville
North Carolina / North Carolina State
South Carolina / Clemson
Florida / Florida State
Georgia / Missouri
Alabama / Auburn
Mississippi / Mississippi State
Texas A&M / Arkansas
Texas / Oklahoma

BIG 20
Rutgers / Miami
Maryland / Virginia
Penn State / Michigan State
Ohio State / Michigan
Indiana / Purdue
Illinois / Northwestern
Iowa / Nebraska
Minnesota / Wisconsin
Oregon / Washington
USC / UCLA

"ACC"
Virginia Tech
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Boston College
Duke
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech

Note: Notre Dame will treat even this ACC as its side piece and continue playing 3-4 of them a year. Until...

Third Wave:

(events happening beyond 2027)

4.) Now for the SEC and Big Ten its just about getting to 24 members and breaking off into an ultra-tier of college sports. It might take a while (years) but here's what that looks like...

#21 Big Ten - Notre Dame
#22 Big Ten - Colorado
#23 Big Ten - Utah
#24 Big Ten - Kansas

#21 SEC - Virginia Tech
#22 SEC - Duke
#23 SEC - UCF/USF (I'm torn here. Long-term I think USF is the better add.)
#24 SEC - TCU

(03-21-2024 08:26 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 06:09 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  We also know that Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and BC were in favor of filing a lawsuit against FSU without a full vote; That's according to a sworn affidavit by the UVA president.

We also know that at least 5 schools that were in favor of the special January meeting to approve the ACC's amended suit against FSU: Miami, Pitt, Louisville, GT and incoming member SMU.

There are obviously enough votes to countersue Clemson, so I don't see how there wouldn't be enough to sue FSU.

So between the Matts, that's 10 yes, 2 no and UNC, NCSU and ND not saying.
SMU, Stanford and Cal don't have a vote yet. That's enough if it requires 2/3, but they would need 2 more to get 75%. Still, if it was filed without authorization, the FSU argument to throw it out may have merit.

The fact that a man named Bubba is making decisions at UNC tells me everything I need to know about that place.

(03-21-2024 05:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  "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."

(snip image)

That quote really popped out for me too.

These statements by a very powerful NC personage are IMO bad news for the ACC.

(03-21-2024 07:02 AM)esayem Wrote:  For those of you who aren’t aware, the BOT is not making any decisions. The decision runs through the board of governors, which isn’t just representing Carolina, but the entire UNC system. So it’s nothing like Texas/aTm and Oklahoma/OK State. That decision just got a lot more complicated with the vote the other month.

The BOT can make all the noise in the world, but it’s out of their hands here. They sound really important with their title, but they are handcuffed. I’m not saying they’re wrong; Carolina is the best brand outside the SEC/B18 besides Notre Dame and they 1000% deserve to make more money than most of those schools.

Exactly!!

(03-21-2024 08:30 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 06:09 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  We also know that Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and BC were in favor of filing a lawsuit against FSU without a full vote; That's according to a sworn affidavit by the UVA president.
We also know that at least 5 schools that were in favor of the special January meeting to approve the ACC's amended suit against FSU: Miami, Pitt, Louisville, GT and incoming member SMU.

So that leaves Clemson, FSU, UNC, NCSU and Notre Dame.

And it's HILARIOUS to see how certain UNC fans are have slowly changed their tune over time. UNC leadership is finally starting to show their true selves. What's playing out in real-time is the classic "good cop / bad cop" technique.

The internal by-laws voting requirement is a red herring. All the reporting indicates that the ACC formally requires a 2/3 vote. Ten out of 15 members achieves the two-thirds threshold...public reporting indicates that they have that vote. The ACC probably hasn't taken the formal vote because it will inevitably generate negative publicity.

Clemson's action has now put UNC on-the-clock (and potentially, NC State). That is likely the point where SEC safe-harbor ends.

It'll be interesting to see if Miami, Notre Dame or some other (current or future) ACC programs aren't having more informal talks with the B1G. The B1G likely has only focused on FSU, but now that the foundation is shaking there may be bigger opportunities.

(03-21-2024 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 05:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  "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."

(snip image)

That quote really popped out for me too.

These statements by a very powerful NC personage are IMO bad news for the ACC.

That's hilarious. No one honestly believes that this is about some populist version of transparency. It's always easy to blame the big bad Demon Deacon for the current change in economic fortunes.

FSU, Clemson and the UNC BOT member have determined that their athletic departments can get paid more money if they break the existing contracts with the ACC. That is the only goal that drives these lawsuits.

(03-21-2024 10:29 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 05:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  "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."

(snip image)

That quote really popped out for me too.

These statements by a very powerful NC personage are IMO bad news for the ACC.

That's hilarious. No one honestly believes that this is about some populist version of transparency. It's always easy to blame the big bad Demon Deacon for the current change in economic fortunes.

FSU, Clemson and the UNC BOT member have determined that their athletic departments can get paid more money if they break the existing contracts with the ACC. That is the only goal that drives these lawsuits.

2nd paragraph is exactly correct. FSU and Clemson desire to compete nationally in football and will be severely financially handicapped by remaining in the ACC. At the end of the day, there are just too many ACC members that don't care about football. Those that don't care about competing nationally in football are content to cash the TV paychecks (that are mostly earned by FSU and Clemson) while they focus on non-revenue sports and revel in their sense of academic superiority.

(03-21-2024 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 05:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  "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."

(snip image)

That quote really popped out for me too.

These statements by a very powerful NC personage are IMO bad news for the ACC.

The contract law concept of fiduciary duty exists to protect the most vulnerable. When X number of schools grant rights to a conference, they make themselves vulnerable—they surrender control of assets they would normally retain. A fiduciary duty is now understood to rest with the conference. It has to operate in good faith to provide member schools with appropriate value (consideration) for what they have given up.

I mention this because it astonished Tallahassee lawyers to see the ACC actually arguing in its countersuit that fiduciary duty runs the other way. The schools, said the ACC, owe consideration to the conference. It's an own-goal you don't expect the other party to hand you.

That non-standard way of viewing the relationship reinforces what some school officials are saying: something funky, some unwarranted sense of managerial entitlement, exists in the conference culture.

(03-21-2024 10:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 05:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  "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."

(snip image)

That quote really popped out for me too.

These statements by a very powerful NC personage are IMO bad news for the ACC.

The contract law concept of fiduciary duty exists to protect the most vulnerable. When X number of schools grant rights to a conference, they make themselves vulnerable—they surrender control of assets they would normally retain. A fiduciary duty is now understood to rest with the conference. It has to operate in good faith to provide member schools with appropriate value (consideration) for what they have given up.

I mention this because it astonished Tallahassee lawyers to see the ACC actually arguing in its countersuit that fiduciary duty runs the other way. The schools, said the ACC, owe consideration to the conference. It's an own-goal you don't expect the other party to hand you.

That non-standard way of viewing the relationship reinforces what some school officials are saying: something funky, some unwarranted sense of managerial entitlement, exists in the conference culture.

A friend of mine practices IP law, which is basically what the GOR is. Breach of fiduciary duty doesn't void the contract, but it does open the door for damages. Hence, a settlement would likely be precipitated from proving breach of fiduciary duty.

(03-21-2024 10:47 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 05:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  "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."

(snip image)

That quote really popped out for me too.

These statements by a very powerful NC personage are IMO bad news for the ACC.

The contract law concept of fiduciary duty exists to protect the most vulnerable. When X number of schools grant rights to a conference, they make themselves vulnerable—they surrender control of assets they would normally retain. A fiduciary duty is now understood to rest with the conference. It has to operate in good faith to provide member schools with appropriate value (consideration) for what they have given up.

I mention this because it astonished Tallahassee lawyers to see the ACC actually arguing in its countersuit that fiduciary duty runs the other way. The schools, said the ACC, owe consideration to the conference. It's an own-goal you don't expect the other party to hand you.

That non-standard way of viewing the relationship reinforces what some school officials are saying: something funky, some unwarranted sense of managerial entitlement, exists in the conference culture.

It's that toxic Tidewater mentality at the heart of the rotten culture of the core ACC...don't you know we're supposed to be happy serfs toiling on their plantation and resting in the shade cast by the ivory tower? We should feel lucky they allow us to be here!