Non-Key Tweets | Page 1050 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

My guess is that Flug is claiming the ACC is planning clandestine meetings to determine their next move.

I personally don't see this as likely because that conference's hands are cuffed until the media rights extension is either officially picked up or officially dropped by ESPN.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
My guess is that Flug is claiming the ACC is planning clandestine meetings to determine their next move.

I personally don't see this as likely because that conference's hands are cuffed until the media rights extension is either officially picked up or officially dropped by ESPN.
Expand ...
Don't they have pro rata clause in their TV contract?
 
noeynox said:
Don't they have pro rata clause in their TV contract?
Expand ...
Not sure if it still applies. Stanford and Cal came in pro-rata. SMU came in receiving no media revenues but I'm not sure what the conference receives for them being in the conference.

Were less than a year removed from knowing if there media deal expires in two years or twelve. I don't know what sense it makes changing composition with that significant of a variable.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Not sure if it still applies. Stanford and Cal came in pro-rata. SMU came in receiving no media revenues but I'm not sure what the conference receives for them being in the conference.

Were less than a year removed from knowing if there media deal expires in two years or twelve. I don't know what sense it makes changing composition with that significant of a variable.
Expand ...
I don't think that is true. SMU i think forfeited their share to give the existing schools more revenue. In effect they paid their way in.
 
I know SMU voluntarily forfeited their share, what I don't know is if what the ACC is receiving for the addition of SMU was equal to what the conference received for the other additions (Stanford and Cal)
 
FfldCntyFan said:
I know SMU voluntarily forfeited their share, what I don't know is if what the ACC is receiving for the addition of SMU was equal to what the conference received for the other additions (Stanford and Cal)
Expand ...
Oh I see. I thought they had pro rata for any additions written into their contract.
 
LoyalFanCT said:
louisville wasn't shy a dozen years ago about reaching out and it worked for them
Expand ...
Yes, but the A¢¢ didn't hate Loserville, they do however utterly detest us. A decade ago they would've been out salvation, but now the A¢¢ door is closed to us, and the way is shut.
 
KryHavok said:
Yes, but the A¢¢ didn't hate Loserville, they do however utterly detest us. A decade ago they would've been out salvation, but now the A¢¢ door is closed to us, and the way is shut.
Expand ...
Louisville had such a poor academic reputation at least a third of the ACC didn't want them at first, if not more.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Not sure if it still applies. Stanford and Cal came in pro-rata. SMU came in receiving no media revenues but I'm not sure what the conference receives for them being in the conference.

Were less than a year removed from knowing if there media deal expires in two years or twelve. I don't know what sense it makes changing composition with that significant of a variable.
Expand ...
Unless ESPN communicates a desired target that would cause them to exercise their option....
John Belushi Eyebrows GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
215
Guests online
1,468
Total visitors
1,683
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,966
Messages
4,376,914
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom