Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 840 | The Boneyard

Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

CL82 said:
Depends who you ask and for what purpose. I think what he was referencing was the fact that the Big Ten either prohibits or discourages scheduling G5 opponents for conference members, but for the purposes of the application of that rule they consider Connecticut to be a "power school."
Expand ...

Right but that's a policy from 10 years ago
 
JMick said:
Right but that's a policy from 10 years ago
Expand ...
Still in place though. But, here's the thing, there's a basis for saying there's a perception of our program as being something different than a G5 program. Ultimately, we just need to back that up on the field.
 
Ha Who said:
www.actionnetwork.com

Big Ten 'Strongly Considering' Removing Nonconference Power 5 Schedule Requirement

Check out Brett McMurphy's report on the Big Ten "strongly considering" removing its nonconference Power Five schedule requirement.
www.actionnetwork.com www.actionnetwork.com
Expand ...
Besides teams from the other Power 5 leagues – ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC – plus Notre Dame, several non-Power 5 programs counted toward the Power 5 requirement. That includes the three service academy schools — Army, Navy and Air Force — along with BYU, Cincinnati, UConn and others.
 
billybud said:
Expand ...


May have been previously posted but the lawsuit was brought by this attorney who is a Duke Grad and decidedly against UNC or any teams getting out of their media rights contract and leaving the ACC. In the short run he can probably complicate matters for UNC but once the dam is breached all the FOI's and public disclosure requests aren't going to stop UNC. IMO.

 
Jimdish255 said:
May have been previously posted but the lawsuit was brought by this attorney who is a Duke Grad and decidedly against UNC or any teams getting out of their media rights contract and leaving the ACC. In the short run he can probably complicate matters for UNC but once the dam is breached all the FOI's and public disclosure requests aren't going to stop UNC. IMO.

Expand ...


This guy said it a lot more clearly than my selling a house example a couple of pages back. The rights are sold with a Grant of Rights. It is really hard to un-sell them.

Where the Clemson and FSU cases have a sliver of light is around the fact that A) they don't have the actual contract, which may be a statutory violation, and B) the agreement was potentially changed or violated by the ACC at some point. Either could theoretically release members from the GOR, but it is an uphill battle. The difficulty in accessing the agreement by the members in particular makes the FSU and Clemson cases very strange.
 
I have seen quite a few posts claiming that the ACC will either be dead or well behind the B-12 once this situation unfolds. Personally I believe that this take is quite an overreaction.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that in the near future an agreement is reached where getting out of the GOR is a negligle amount of money. With that, there is still a very substantial (and enforceable) exit fee, which will make departing from the conference prohibitive unless the result is a spot in the B1G or SEC. I imagine that at most four current ACC schools can make this move (FSU & Clemson are the clear candidates, likey UNC and perhaps UVA as they do have some gravitas and prestige).

At that point, will there really be much difference in market power & brands when comparing the B-12 and the ACC? The idea of a current ACC school paying a nine figure departure fee to join at best a marginally better, slighty higher compensated conference seems implausible to me. Yes, there will be further separation between the P-2 and the next two (ACC. B-12) but there won't be a material amount of difference between the two next two conferences.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
This guy said it a lot more clearly than my selling a house example a couple of pages back. The rights are sold with a Grant of Rights. It is really hard to un-sell them.

Where the Clemson and FSU cases have a sliver of light is around the fact that A) they don't have the actual contract, which may be a statutory violation, and B) the agreement was potentially changed or violated by the ACC at some point. Either could theoretically release members from the GOR, but it is an uphill battle. The difficulty in accessing the agreement by the members in particular makes the FSU and Clemson cases very strange.
Expand ...
I won't disagree at all with this but there always is the possibility of buying back something that you've previously sold. While I have no desire to do so, there is nothing stopping me from attempting to negotiate with the current owner of the house I purchased thirty years ago, then sold when my exwife and I split.
 
Jimdish255 said:
May have been previously posted but the lawsuit was brought by this attorney who is a Duke Grad and decidedly against UNC or any teams getting out of their media rights contract and leaving the ACC. In the short run he can probably complicate matters for UNC but once the dam is breached all the FOI's and public disclosure requests aren't going to stop UNC. IMO.

Expand ...

Thanks for posting. In my experience, attorneys that love their case or believe it to be rock solid, don't spend a bunch of time lobbying the public on Twitter. He spends a lot of time discussing irrelevant UNC BOG authorities and Wake impacts rather than whether the ACC potentially breached it's authority or engaged in behavior contrary to members best interests in renewing a contract AFTER market values had changed and without their full awareness (allegedly). Anyone know whether the ACC acts on behalf of members as agent or fiduciary? Either actor can be contested on various grounds regardless. Who knows, maybe the last 2 years of the GOR are safe, but arguing for the next 10 years, with 16+ schools, in a dozen states, all with differing contracts rights and laws... Lawyers are going to make a lot of money watching this ship burn imo.
 
speckle said:
Thanks for posting. In my experience, attorneys that love their case or believe it to be rock solid, don't spend a bunch of time lobbying the public on Twitter. He spends a lot of time discussing irrelevant UNC BOG authorities and Wake impacts rather than whether the ACC potentially breached it's authority or engaged in behavior contrary to members best interests in renewing a contract AFTER market values had changed and without their full awareness (allegedly). Anyone know whether the ACC acts on behalf of members as agent or fiduciary? Either actor can be contested on various grounds regardless. Who knows, maybe the last 2 years of the GOR are safe, but arguing for the next 10 years, with 16+ schools, in a dozen states, all with differing contracts rights and laws... Lawyers are going to make a lot of money watching this ship burn imo.
Expand ...

Or FSU is engaging in performance art so their moron fans think that they are joining the Big 10 someday, because there is a contingent of every fanbase that finds being in a major conference more important than their team actually winning.
 


2 years of TV revenue per school- which will be taken from future NCAA Tournament distributions. Sick league!
 

Big East commissioner Val Ackerman “strongly objects” to a $70M tab her league may owe in damages...

tom cruise GIF

"Is that how it works? You strongly object..."
 
It seems the settlement is with the NCAA and the only significant revenue source for the NCAA is the men's basketball tournament. The CFP is separate from the NCAA. I guess they could adjust the basketball payouts to impact the P5 more significantly.
 
UConnJim said:
It seems the settlement is with the NCAA and the only significant revenue source for the NCAA is the men's basketball tournament. The CFP is separate from the NCAA. I guess they could adjust the basketball payouts to impact the P5 more significantly.
Expand ...
It sounds like the plan is to have the NCAA responsible for the settlement, which would be funded by the NCAA basketball tournament. The thing is, the PAC-12 and a number of individual schools are also tied to the lawsuit. It seems awfully magnanimous of the NCAA to take this on themselves.
 
Gburyhusky said:
The 600k per school per year will look like a bargain compared to the price tag for revenue sharing opt in.
Expand ...
The good news with the revenue sharing piece is that we can choose how much to spend. We don't need to spend as much as the P4 schools on Olympic sports but can spend the same or more on M/W basketball and pay toward the top end of the G5/bottom end of the P4.
 
shizzle787 said:
The good news with the revenue sharing piece is that we can choose how much to spend. We don't need to spend as much as the P4 schools on Olympic sports but can spend the same or more on M/W basketball and pay toward the top end of the G5/bottom end of the P4.
Expand ...
If you're not going to spend as much, why even bother.
 
shizzle787 said:
The good news with the revenue sharing piece is that we can choose how much to spend. We don't need to spend as much as the P4 schools on Olympic sports but can spend the same or more on M/W basketball and pay toward the top end of the G5/bottom end of the P4.
Expand ...
Unfortunately, UConn spends more than any G5 on non football/men's basketball and more than many P4 schools including 2x what Houston and Cincinnati spend.
 
shizzle787 said:
It's 600k a year for a decade. If some of these schools need to cut a men's and women's sport, so be it. It's not a dea
Expand ...

UConnJim said:
Unfortunately, UConn spends more than any G5 on non football/men's basketball and more than many P4 schools including 2x what Houston and Cincinnati spend.
Expand ...
So the non-rev sports have to fund themselves, or at least significantly subsidize their sport. Alums of those sports should care, shouldn't they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
159
Guests online
3,475
Total visitors
3,634
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,968
Messages
4,416,452
Members
10,243
Latest member
DC23


.
..
Top Bottom