Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The settlement here is for the Big10, SEC, and the Big12 to take all of the ACC schools. Then all will agree to get rid of the GOR.

The article that I posted above written by an IP attorney states that just 75% of the members can agree to void the agreement. However, I do not know whether or not this is accurate & I do not know the particulars, but this seems reasonable & plausible.

So I have seen that before but the GOR does not have this 75% number. The language is pretty clear that it is 100%.

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers far better than ones on DCUM mid-day have reviewed things on behalf of at least 6 schools and haven't come up with any great strategies.

You want to bet on that? This board is filled with those lawyers who spend some time on here just to relax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Acc is stuck till 2036. Majority of schools have no safe landing spot so GOR is bulletproof.

If this were true, then there would be fewer lawyers and court calendars would not be clogged.

Remember: If a town has just one lawyer, the lawyer will starve, but if a town has two lawyers, both will thrive.

While that is true ---- there is no way out of the GOR. If you are a family with 5 kids --- and you form a company and each lease your house to the company for 10 years so that you all share all the house, in year 3 because you need to move to a new city for a job you can't say give me my house back. Company has the lease and no way to challenge when in the agreement you agreed that even if you had to move for a job the lease remains. Company can enforce the lease. No matter what happens you do not get your house back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Acc is stuck till 2036. Majority of schools have no safe landing spot so GOR is bulletproof.

If this were true, then there would be fewer lawyers and court calendars would not be clogged.

If it weren't true, Clemson and FSU would have been in their new conferences for years now

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

FSU and Clemson are overvaluing themselves too. Does the SEC even want schools at more than a partial share like what UW and Oregon got?

ESPN has made it clear that they don't want more product. They have to be hoping for the Big10

Great point, but what if FSU and/or Clemson leave one ESPN league for another ? ESPN has the broadcast rights for both the SEC & the ACC.

ESPN already owns the rights, so that solves one issue. The bigger issue is that they are paying FSU $20 million for those rights and aren't just going to pay them double that because they ask

Reasonable thought, but we do not know that. Why ? Because the SEC becomes more valuable to ESPN with teams like Clemson & FSU. In other words, Clemson & FSU are more valuable as members of a premier conference like the SEC than they are as members of a mediocre football conference like the ACC. Viewers love competitive games; viewers get bored by lopsided, blowout games.

Does it? ESPN relies on carriage fees - what cable systems does Clemson and FSU bring? The ESPN+ app has been a disaster as far as revenue and this doesn't help. Right now ESPN is engaging in massive cost cutting not vanity signings. The fact that they didn't even bother to bid for the Pac12 should tell you where they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Acc is stuck till 2036. Majority of schools have no safe landing spot so GOR is bulletproof.

If this were true, then there would be fewer lawyers and court calendars would not be clogged.

Remember: If a town has just one lawyer, the lawyer will starve, but if a town has two lawyers, both will thrive.

Anonymous wrote:
Acc is stuck till 2036. Majority of schools have no safe landing spot so GOR is bulletproof.

If this were true, then there would be fewer lawyers and court calendars would not be clogged.

Acc is stuck till 2036. Majority of schools have no safe landing spot so GOR is bulletproof.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

FSU and Clemson are overvaluing themselves too. Does the SEC even want schools at more than a partial share like what UW and Oregon got?

ESPN has made it clear that they don't want more product. They have to be hoping for the Big10

Great point, but what if FSU and/or Clemson leave one ESPN league for another ? ESPN has the broadcast rights for both the SEC & the ACC.

ESPN already owns the rights, so that solves one issue. The bigger issue is that they are paying FSU $20 million for those rights and aren't just going to pay them double that because they ask

Reasonable thought, but we do not know that. Why ? Because the SEC becomes more valuable to ESPN with teams like Clemson & FSU. In other words, Clemson & FSU are more valuable as members of a premier conference like the SEC than they are as members of a mediocre football conference like the ACC. Viewers love competitive games; viewers get bored by lopsided, blowout games.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

FSU and Clemson are overvaluing themselves too. Does the SEC even want schools at more than a partial share like what UW and Oregon got?

ESPN has made it clear that they don't want more product. They have to be hoping for the Big10

Additionally, this is a great point regarding over-saturation of college football on TV and on other media. How much is too much ?

The Big Ten Conference has an advantage because it is in multiple time zones.

Also, if college football develops into two or three major conferences, demand may plummet for games featuring teams from lesser conferences.

Clemson's Head Coach Dabo Sweeney was quoted as predicting that college football is quickly headed into an era of just 40 to 50 teams. (I think that he meant 40 to 50 teams of consequence.) 40 to 50 teams means 20 to 25 games a week at most since some teams have bye weeks. Games are no longer played on just Saturdays so the development of 2 or 3 mega-conferences may result in fewer games worthy of being aired on major media broadcast stations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

FSU and Clemson are overvaluing themselves too. Does the SEC even want schools at more than a partial share like what UW and Oregon got?

ESPN has made it clear that they don't want more product. They have to be hoping for the Big10

Great point, but what if FSU and/or Clemson leave one ESPN league for another ? ESPN has the broadcast rights for both the SEC & the ACC.

ESPN already owns the rights, so that solves one issue. The bigger issue is that they are paying FSU $20 million for those rights and aren't just going to pay them double that because they ask

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

FSU and Clemson are overvaluing themselves too. Does the SEC even want schools at more than a partial share like what UW and Oregon got?

ESPN has made it clear that they don't want more product. They have to be hoping for the Big10

Great point, but what if FSU and/or Clemson leave one ESPN league for another ? ESPN has the broadcast rights for both the SEC & the ACC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FSU may have engaged the services of an investment banker (JP Morgan Chase) and a private equity (PE firm Sixth Street) firm to raise money as well as to have access to sufficient capital to first make a settlement offer and to have a sufficient show of capital to fund an expensive court battle (which is a great & often effective settlement strategy).

FSU and Clemson are overvaluing themselves too. Does the SEC even want schools at more than a partial share like what UW and Oregon got?

ESPN has made it clear that they don't want more product. They have to be hoping for the Big10

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The B1G already recruits in Florida Georgia, Texas and the Carolinas. Whether teams from the conference are in that footprint is mostly irrelevant.

Yes, but the top recruits from those states still remain in the region. Remember, these are high school kids who want their family and friends to be close enough to attend games in person. If the Big Ten Conference has a team in a recruit's home state, then the recruit will consider the opportunity to play at least one game a year or 6 games per year in their home state. Geography often makes a significant difference in recruiting athletes.

They usually remain in the region anyhow. Any Florida or Georgia kid is going to want to play at FSU, GA or UF. Sure, everyone once in a while Michigan or Wisconsin pulls one of those kids, but they are usually 3 or 4 star, not the 5 star recruits. That won't change.

As conferences expand in to different regions, players become more willing to look at schools within a conference that has at least one member school in that region. With NIL money, players will want playing time ASAP so recruits look at their playing position depth and chances of playing as much as any other factor.

There are not a lot of 5 star recruits, but 5 star recruits are the least likely to sign based on regional preference; 5 star recruits typically have their sight set on the NFL so they want to go to winning programs which get lots of TV exposure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The B1G already recruits in Florida Georgia, Texas and the Carolinas. Whether teams from the conference are in that footprint is mostly irrelevant.

Yes, but the top recruits from those states still remain in the region. Remember, these are high school kids who want their family and friends to be close enough to attend games in person. If the Big Ten Conference has a team in a recruit's home state, then the recruit will consider the opportunity to play at least one game a year or 6 games per year in their home state. Geography often makes a significant difference in recruiting athletes.

They usually remain in the region anyhow. Any Florida or Georgia kid is going to want to play at FSU, GA or UF. Sure, everyone once in a while Michigan or Wisconsin pulls one of those kids, but they are usually 3 or 4 star, not the 5 star recruits. That won't change.