I'm simply pointing out that GOR mihgt not be the hurdle is is being sold as for all the reasons I discussed. It is a hurdle, but no hurdle put in place by a conference has prevented a team from leaving and further no team has ever lived up to the "unbreakable" requirement. If Florida State or Georgia Tech or Syracuse gets an offer from another league and decides it wants to leave, it will leave. And any GOR, or notice requirement or exit fee will ultimately be negotiated downward. Keep in mind that the ACC said at the outset that it would not negotiate with Maryland. It would not give an inch. It of course ultimately took $31 million. The same thing will happen on any GOR. I outlined the basis of a settlement, which will be a cash payment of some sort, ultimately less than the school will earn in its new conference.
Well, we will certainly see how this all shakes out going forward. Just a couple of things to consider, FWIW:
1. Yes, the ACC's original position was that they would not settle. That said, you neglected to mention that UMD's position was also "not to give an inch". Their view was that they did not owe the ACC a dime - and, in fact, they were owed something like $157M(?) in damages. In the end, the ACC "settled" on almost 61% of what they were seeking.
2. GORs are different animals in that there is not a "fee" to be negotiated; as the the Conference owns the media rights to its teams for a specified period of years. A team leaving a conference with a GOR would need to litigate to get those rights back. Unlike the UMD exit fee case, this team would start from a position of challenging something they had voluntarily approved to begin with. For purposes of this discussion, though, let's say that the parties negotiate a "settlement." If it falls along the lines of the 61% exit fee settlement received by the ACC in the UMD case - or even a simple 50-50 split, the loss of even 50% of the value of a team's media rights for the duration of the GOR (in addition to the exit fee) would be a staggering sum which I am not sure any team could accept. IMO, the only realistic course of action for a team pursuing such a strategy would be to go all-in and challenge the GOR and/or the forfeiture clauses since a "settlement' would likely still be financially horrendous for any team given the huge sums involved.
3. IMO, if a team were to go "all-in" to overturn the GOR and forfeiture clauses, it would be an interesting litigation given that: (a) they willingly agreed to them and (b) unless the team is going to the SEC, they would be moving to a conference with the same GOR provisions (would make for interesting depositions, IMO!).
IMO, the GORs were never intended to be an absolute lock in preventing a team from ever leaving a conference. For the ACC, IMO, they are intended as a bridge to get the conference closer to the point where they can renegotiate what most consider is an historically undervalued contract. In addition, the landscape will likely change over the next 12 years so its hard to predict just how the future will shake out for any of this.
Just my 2 cents.