Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="FfldCntyFan, post: 5051166, member: 71"] If this were true, then the ACC would have been actively pursuing a new media contract with all potential broadcast partners as there would be now less than one year remaining on the current deal. The negotiations that led to the downfall of the P-12 started more than thirty months in advance of expiration of their then current contract, became public nearly 25 months in advance and completely deteriorated roughly twelve months in advance of the contract expiring. To me this sounds like standard operating procedure. Until I see a ruling stating differently, I will adhere to this. Who eactly was this kept secret from? Every member school likely would have been anticipating announcement of an extenstion and I imagine that any member that was curious as to to situation would merely have needed to ask (and well coulld have asked). The general public not being informed doesn't necessarily constitute it being a secret and it is highly likely that those complaining they hadn't found out put themselves in that position intentionally for plausible deniability. Again, the authority the commissioner was granted and whether or not others in authority did or did not know are things that should be easily proven and if the commissioner had overstepped his authority and/or did not properly notify those who were required to be notified, this would have been settled (in favor of FSU/Clemson) in the matter of days. Why is it still an open issue? As far as fraud allegations, this will be quite difficult to prove and of greater importance, someone claiming to have been defrauded does not mean a fraud had been committed. There's a federal statue (the False Claims Act) due ti the excessive number of false accusations of fraud that end up in court. Clemson can claim it. I'll believe it was a fraud when a court states that it was. There may be an even larger issue for FSU and Clemson. If a court decides these actions undermined the ACC's ability to negotiate an extension at fair market value, the two schools could be on the hook for damages. Why the hell didn't they leave for the B-12 a dozen years ago (when it not only wouldn't have cost them close to the current cost to leave, but they would have been able to face off as conference mates with Texas and Oklahoma)? The opportunity was there, it was a basketball centric conference then (more than today even), the match wasn't comfortable then. It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed. What does this have to do with FSU or Clemson? Hell, what (directly) does it have to do with the ACC? If the governing body of state of Florida's higher education system passed a rule requiring some relationship between UF, FSU, UCF and USF (X number of football games every Y number of years; X number of basketball games every Y number of years; X number of baseball games every Y number of years) would that be an ACC/SEC/B-12/AAC issue? It isn't as if the headquarters of the conference office, the number of North Carolina members or even the basic membership of the conference (I believe there was only one change) has altered since the GOR was signed. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach