(08-11-2022 11:59 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:55 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You can't take 2 or 4 at once because you then blow up the math to dissolve the ACC and avoid GoR issues. You must take a minimum of 7, and that assumes ND wants out right now with the other 7.

Easy math really. 8 gets the SEC to 24. That seems to be the final number for the P2's.

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, Duke, Virginia and Virginia Tech. That covers the flagships and the biggest football brands and the best basketball brands available. Add Kansas from the Big 12 and there's your 8 to get to 24.

I see UVA and Duke going northward instead for their P2 invite. Both are straight up a better fit there in every metric.

I'm not sure it takes a full 7 or 8 teams getting to P2 (depending on ND's vote).
Lets say only 5 or 6 had homes in a P2 if a reconstituted P3 or B12/ACC was going to get say 15-20M more in revenues than the current ACC and you know your going to that league eventually, is it really enough to dissuade schools not getting a P2 invite?

(08-11-2022 10:12 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Good, boring and did nothing for ACC.

Agreed….
It was a snoozefest every year

I’m glad to see it put out of its misery

(08-11-2022 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You can't take 2 or 4 at once because you then blow up the math to dissolve the ACC and avoid GoR issues. You must take a minimum of 7, and that assumes ND wants out right now with the other 7.

It’s not possible to blow up the conference without EVERY program having a golden parachute. As was explained before, when a university starts talking to another conference, they immediately become a disinterested director.

Frank explained it from a legal viewpoint here:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-951339-post-18...id18336620

His post:

“
“Disinterested Director” is defined in the bylaws as someone that is not an “Interested Director.” To summarize the definition of an Interested Director, it’s essentially a representative of a school that has a substantial interest in the applicable matter being voted on, except where there is a matter that is inherently substantial to everyone in the league in an equal manner. Basically, the argument that you’re making is twisting the intent of that definition. It would violate all intent to try to argue, “Well, School A is getting completely screwed by School B trying to leave the league, so now School A is totally biased and isn’t a Disinterested Director anymore!” Clever play on words, but that won’t work.

The bylaws are written to protect the conference and those screwed within the conference as opposed to the screwer that’s trying to leave/damage the conference. The school that’s trying to leave is the one that is creating the conflict of interest *against* the league, so they’re now the Interested Director. The fact that the other schools are “biased” in wanting to eliminate a conflict of interest to *protect* the league doesn’t make them Interested Directors under the bylaws.

It’s actually perfectly reasonable for a school suddenly saying, “We want to dissolve the conference” and then the other schools immediately respond, “Why on Earth would you want to dissolve the league for any reason other than you want to leave and/or break the GOR?” These schools may not be smart all of the time, but they’re also not THAT stupid.

Remember: the whole point of the bylaws is to protect and preserve the league! It’s not a document that was written with the intent for schools leaving the league to screw everyone else. The Big 12 bylaws actually indicate that they ACTIVELY recognized that to be the case (which doesn’t surprise me considering the bylaws were signed right after all of the early-2010s defections and the Pac-16 proposal).”

(08-11-2022 06:20 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You can't take 2 or 4 at once because you then blow up the math to dissolve the ACC and avoid GoR issues. You must take a minimum of 7, and that assumes ND wants out right now with the other 7.

It’s not possible to blow up the conference without EVERY program having a golden parachute. As was explained before, when a university starts talking to another conference, they immediately become a disinterested director.

Frank explained it from a legal viewpoint here:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-951339-post-18...id18336620

His post:

“
“Disinterested Director” is defined in the bylaws as someone that is not an “Interested Director.” To summarize the definition of an Interested Director, it’s essentially a representative of a school that has a substantial interest in the applicable matter being voted on, except where there is a matter that is inherently substantial to everyone in the league in an equal manner. Basically, the argument that you’re making is twisting the intent of that definition. It would violate all intent to try to argue, “Well, School A is getting completely screwed by School B trying to leave the league, so now School A is totally biased and isn’t a Disinterested Director anymore!” Clever play on words, but that won’t work.

The bylaws are written to protect the conference and those screwed within the conference as opposed to the screwer that’s trying to leave/damage the conference. The school that’s trying to leave is the one that is creating the conflict of interest *against* the league, so they’re now the Interested Director. The fact that the other schools are “biased” in wanting to eliminate a conflict of interest to *protect* the league doesn’t make them Interested Directors under the bylaws.

It’s actually perfectly reasonable for a school suddenly saying, “We want to dissolve the conference” and then the other schools immediately respond, “Why on Earth would you want to dissolve the league for any reason other than you want to leave and/or break the GOR?” These schools may not be smart all of the time, but they’re also not THAT stupid.

Remember: the whole point of the bylaws is to protect and preserve the league! It’s not a document that was written with the intent for schools leaving the league to screw everyone else. The Big 12 bylaws actually indicate that they ACTIVELY recognized that to be the case (which doesn’t surprise me considering the bylaws were signed right after all of the early-2010s defections and the Pac-16 proposal).”

Well 2 things:

1. Dissolution depends upon the bylaws set for it by the conference. If it says for instance 8 votes (a simple majority) then it's 8 votes. If it uses the 3/4 standard, then it is 12 votes.

2. I doubt ESPN would want it to come to a vote. I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

3. This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed. Almost all GOR cases are settled on actual monetary damages in other industries. If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved. Which renders what Frank covered moot. It's what freedom is found when gentlemen agree on mutual self-interest, and everyone gains something. And only ESPN can handle this.

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 06:20 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You can't take 2 or 4 at once because you then blow up the math to dissolve the ACC and avoid GoR issues. You must take a minimum of 7, and that assumes ND wants out right now with the other 7.

It’s not possible to blow up the conference without EVERY program having a golden parachute. As was explained before, when a university starts talking to another conference, they immediately become a disinterested director.

Frank explained it from a legal viewpoint here:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-951339-post-18...id18336620

His post:

“
“Disinterested Director” is defined in the bylaws as someone that is not an “Interested Director.” To summarize the definition of an Interested Director, it’s essentially a representative of a school that has a substantial interest in the applicable matter being voted on, except where there is a matter that is inherently substantial to everyone in the league in an equal manner. Basically, the argument that you’re making is twisting the intent of that definition. It would violate all intent to try to argue, “Well, School A is getting completely screwed by School B trying to leave the league, so now School A is totally biased and isn’t a Disinterested Director anymore!” Clever play on words, but that won’t work.

The bylaws are written to protect the conference and those screwed within the conference as opposed to the screwer that’s trying to leave/damage the conference. The school that’s trying to leave is the one that is creating the conflict of interest *against* the league, so they’re now the Interested Director. The fact that the other schools are “biased” in wanting to eliminate a conflict of interest to *protect* the league doesn’t make them Interested Directors under the bylaws.

It’s actually perfectly reasonable for a school suddenly saying, “We want to dissolve the conference” and then the other schools immediately respond, “Why on Earth would you want to dissolve the league for any reason other than you want to leave and/or break the GOR?” These schools may not be smart all of the time, but they’re also not THAT stupid.

Remember: the whole point of the bylaws is to protect and preserve the league! It’s not a document that was written with the intent for schools leaving the league to screw everyone else. The Big 12 bylaws actually indicate that they ACTIVELY recognized that to be the case (which doesn’t surprise me considering the bylaws were signed right after all of the early-2010s defections and the Pac-16 proposal).”

Well 2 things:

1. Dissolution depends upon the bylaws set for it by the conference. If it says for instance 8 votes (a simple majority) then it's 8 votes. If it uses the 3/4 standard, then it is 12 votes.

2. I doubt ESPN would want it to come to a vote. I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

3. This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed. Almost all GOR cases are settled on actual monetary damages in other industries. If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved. Which renders what Frank covered moot. It's what freedom is found when gentlemen agree on mutual self-interest, and everyone gains something. And only ESPN can handle this.

This makes TOTAL sense.


I've never bought the "ACC must dissolve" scenario so often thrown around message boards. ESPN has invested quite a bit in the ACC Network, and while it's way behind the older SEC and Big Ten Conference Networks, it IS starting to generate revenue. Hell -- Comcast just got on board earlier in 2022. Why would the left over ACC schools OR ESPN want to just let that go?


But ESPN working with the conference to move some schools, bring in replacements, bump up annual revenue, AND guarantee access to the playoff ... that seems to be a very attractive way to manage all this.

Re B1G/ACC challenge.....

ESPN had to manufacture matchups to keep it interesting after the ACC ran off with the series lead. It became a joke.

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

^^^ THIS ^^^
Which is basically what I've been saying all along...

(08-12-2022 10:52 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

^^^ THIS ^^^
Which is basically what I've been saying all along...

Cat's are easy to herd. All you have to do is shake the food bag and if they aren't hungry use treats. They all move toward the food from every direction and at speed. Substitute money for a bag of dried food, and access for treats and then get out of the way and let them be cats. If there is plenty to go around they won't even fight until their through.

(08-11-2022 03:31 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:55 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You can't take 2 or 4 at once because you then blow up the math to dissolve the ACC and avoid GoR issues. You must take a minimum of 7, and that assumes ND wants out right now with the other 7.

Easy math really. 8 gets the SEC to 24. That seems to be the final number for the P2's.

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, Duke, Virginia and Virginia Tech. That covers the flagships and the biggest football brands and the best basketball brands available. Add Kansas from the Big 12 and there's your 8 to get to 24.

That is only 7. Kansas won't count need Louisville , GT or NC State to go . Doubt Duke would get the call over State if Football drives the bus

7+Kansas to the SEC, yes. Like GTS I'm assuming #8 from the ACC would be ND to the B10. Wouldn't ND help make the majority? Or no since they're a partial?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(08-12-2022 12:09 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 03:31 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:55 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 11:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You can't take 2 or 4 at once because you then blow up the math to dissolve the ACC and avoid GoR issues. You must take a minimum of 7, and that assumes ND wants out right now with the other 7.

Easy math really. 8 gets the SEC to 24. That seems to be the final number for the P2's.

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, Duke, Virginia and Virginia Tech. That covers the flagships and the biggest football brands and the best basketball brands available. Add Kansas from the Big 12 and there's your 8 to get to 24.

That is only 7. Kansas won't count need Louisville , GT or NC State to go . Doubt Duke would get the call over State if Football drives the bus

7+Kansas to the SEC, yes. Like GTS I'm assuming #8 from the ACC would be ND to the B10. Wouldn't ND help make the majority? Or no since they're a partial?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

The Irish have a full vote in dissolution of the ACC.

(08-12-2022 11:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 10:52 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

^^^ THIS ^^^
Which is basically what I've been saying all along...

Cat's are easy to herd. All you have to do is shake the food bag and if they aren't hungry use treats. They all move toward the food from every direction and at speed. Substitute money for a bag of dried food, and access for treats and then get out of the way and let them be cats. If there is plenty to go around they won't even fight until their through.

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

If from a Clemson perspective, you had Clemson, UNC, UVa, VT NCSU, GT and FSU (which is half of the current ACC) which schools in the SEC (other than South Carolina) would you be most looking forward co have in your "new" conference?

(08-13-2022 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

If from a Clemson perspective, you had Clemson, UNC, UVa, VT NCSU, GT and FSU (which is half of the current ACC) which schools in the SEC (other than South Carolina) would you be most looking forward co have in your "new" conference?

Not a Clemson fan, but I suspect the interests are highly overlapping.

USC-East, U[sic]GA, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida. Even Vandy is a fun road trip to Nashville. So pretty much the SEC East minus Kentucky. Unless you're a huge bourbon fan. But you already had that only better with Louisville anyway.

(08-13-2022 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

If from a Clemson perspective, you had Clemson, UNC, UVa, VT NCSU, GT and FSU (which is half of the current ACC) which schools in the SEC (other than South Carolina) would you be most looking forward co have in your "new" conference?

I'd say USC Jr, UGA and Auburn. I couldn't care less about playing Florida since we already play FSU and Miami. Tennessee is a big who cares. Same with Kentucky, although the bourbon trail is appealing. Vanderbilt>Duke or WF, so there's that. Mizzou...yawn.

(08-13-2022 02:25 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

If from a Clemson perspective, you had Clemson, UNC, UVa, VT NCSU, GT and FSU (which is half of the current ACC) which schools in the SEC (other than South Carolina) would you be most looking forward co have in your "new" conference?

I'd say USC Jr, UGA and Auburn. I couldn't care less about playing Florida since we already play FSU and Miami. Tennessee is a big who cares. Same with Kentucky, although the bourbon trail is appealing. Vanderbilt>Duke or WF, so there's that. Mizzou...yawn.

Noticeable by their absence from your list are Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M and Oklahoma. How do you feel about them?

(08-13-2022 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

If from a Clemson perspective, you had Clemson, UNC, UVa, VT NCSU, GT and FSU (which is half of the current ACC) which schools in the SEC (other than South Carolina) would you be most looking forward co have in your "new" conference?

3:

Georgia Tech: Auburn's oldest rival

Clemson: We've played over 60 times.

Florida State: Easy drive and a high number of close exciting contests.

(08-13-2022 02:25 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

If from a Clemson perspective, you had Clemson, UNC, UVa, VT NCSU, GT and FSU (which is half of the current ACC) which schools in the SEC (other than South Carolina) would you be most looking forward co have in your "new" conference?

I'd say USC Jr, UGA and Auburn. I couldn't care less about playing Florida since we already play FSU and Miami. Tennessee is a big who cares. Same with Kentucky, although the bourbon trail is appealing. Vanderbilt>Duke or WF, so there's that. Mizzou...yawn.

Sounds like the ACC should just invite 'lil Carolina, Jawja, Auburn, and the Dores and you would be set.

(08-13-2022 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-12-2022 09:39 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:49 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I can envision all presidents and the commissioner with an ESPN rep who would say 5 schools have expressed a desire to join another conference within the ESPN family of rights and if you decide to let them we will backfill with schools of your choice, reevaluate your existing contract and are prepared to give you a raise, or place you all in a conference together where you will merit a raise and no one will suffer lack of access to the post season. If you vote no things will remain as they are.

This way the decision is a consensus decision by all parties and the schools involved may not even be disclosed... If no remaining school suffers an economic loss, or loss of access granted normally then no damages have occurred. And if all agree to act for more money any movement approved by the rights holder may transpire and courts are not involved... everyone gains something... only ESPN can handle this.

What JR describes here could certainly work, but it involves paying ALL 15 ACC SCHOOLS MORE MONEY (or 14 and let Notre Dame go get their pot of gold!). What will NEVER work is the idea of a few schools leaving the others behind early. Think of the GoR as a binding contract between business partners that can only be dissolved if everyone walks away happy.

It sounds very logical and JR is brilliant, but there seems to be a LOT of cat-herding involved in working out the details of such a major move.

From a Clemson perspective, I'd prefer the SEC with UNC, UVa, VT, NCSU, GT, and FSU coming with us.

If from a Clemson perspective, you had Clemson, UNC, UVa, VT NCSU, GT and FSU (which is half of the current ACC) which schools in the SEC (other than South Carolina) would you be most looking forward co have in your "new" conference?

3:

Georgia Tech: Auburn's oldest rival

Clemson: We've played over 60 times.

Florida State: Easy drive and a high number of close exciting contests.

Auburn Clemson is always a good game, but it does infringe on marital harmony in my house since I married a 4th generation Auburn graduate.