Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Realignment thread

Collapse

First Unread Thread Button

Collapse

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    My opinion bothers you, that's obvious.

    I am not a jerk to anyone here, I share my opinions and some people get upset because they don't want it to happen, but are afraid it might.
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    Wow, you really are an emotional little bitch, and paranoid LOL.
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    It's obvious who is emotional here. You are not even making sense at this point.

    Why would 11 AM kickoffs impact me?

    Its' comical how you all circle back to personal chatter when you can't make a point on the actual topic. Emotional fans are so predictable.


    We will know who was right in the coming months. If the ACC does not get a pay bump I will admit I was wrong. If they do then you all will avoid the posts and never admit you were wrong then act emotional like you are doing right now.


    It's like you are upset that I think ESPN will protect the ACC investment. Why would that make you so upset? lol

    Answer, because you don't' want that to happen. My goodness you all are funny when you squirm
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post
    Do you realize how emotional you are acting? It's comical to watch as you get so upset you won't even answer a simple question.
    It took me 2 minutes to find these quotes, no doubt an enterprising person could find 50 in short order. You're a jerk to literally everybody who even mildly disagrees with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    No, I am quite clear that it would run through the end of the athletic season then the TV content of the schools would go back to them since the conference was dissolved. Really simple concept.

    If you want to believe a dissolved conference would still collect TV payments after teams left for new conferences then go for it. You can believe FOX will own OU and UT content in the SEC if you want. But you also have to understand that some people may not agree with that wild assessment you have where you are not even sure who would be collecting the $, why ESPN/FOPX would pay a dissolved conference for a TV contract, and who would get the $ ultimately.


    I hope we get to find out as I believe that is the best path out for OU.
    It's certainly the lest expensive path for OU, but the mental gymnastics required to get there are pretty extreme.

    Leave a comment:


  • ICThawk
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

    The whole A and B can't amend a contract that adversely impacts C doesn't really hold water. The term is privity of contract. Parties A and B can have a contract. Parties B and C can have a contract. However, C, as a third party of the contract between A and B has no recourse against any sort of failure or modification of that particular contract between A and B. Contracts are only binding between the parties involved and can not impose an obligation or liability on a third party. It all ends up being every orderly with each contract standing on its own.

    Of course, C can have a claim against B, for any resulting failure in the contract between B and C, but that doesn't preclude changes to other contracts its not a party.

    Though, overall, the GoR going away has no direct impact on the conference providing football games to the networks. Plenty of conferences manage to have football games be televised without one. The potential for problems does ratchet up a few notches, but until a breach occurs, there isn't much that can be done.

    One TRA we do have access is the one involving LHN. It does have a termination clause which includes the dissolution of any party or the discontinuation of business affairs and goes further to state no party can claim consequential or special damages or loss of profits upon termination. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same language in the Big 12 contract as its written very much like boilerplate language.

    Tortious interference would come into play in the case of Fox/B1G attempting to poach teams while under contract.
    You may wish to start your review of privity of contract with the "Rights of Third Parties" section of the link.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract

    Leave a comment:


  • RocketCitySooner
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    No, I am quite clear that it would run through the end of the athletic season then the TV content of the schools would go back to them since the conference was dissolved. Really simple concept.

    If you want to believe a dissolved conference would still collect TV payments after teams left for new conferences then go for it. You can believe FOX will own OU and UT content in the SEC if you want. But you also have to understand that some people may not agree with that wild assessment you have where you are not even sure who would be collecting the $, why ESPN/FOPX would pay a dissolved conference for a TV contract, and who would get the $ ultimately.


    I hope we get to find out as I believe that is the best path out for OU.
    You're still making the mistake of believing that the conference would cease operations upon a vote to dissolve. Elements of the conference would continue to operate to ensure an orderly and legal dissolution. That includes preserving assets, paying debts, collecting revenues. It also includes paying the schools what they are owed. Some disagree with me because they're believe that dissolving the conference is the magic silver bullet that breaks the GOR. There are a few ways to end the GOR. One is for the schools/conference to buy their rights back. Another if for the nets to stop paying the conference. Another, and the most likely, is to simply wait until the end of the GOR in 2025.

    I believe the nets would continue to own the right to broadcast the games through the end of the GOR. The nets would send the money to the conference, which would still exist, and the conference would distribute the money to the schools as stipulated in the bylaws. Read the GOR I posted above. The schools must facilitate access by the nets to broadcast their games. There is no provision in paragraphs 8&9 that makes that obligation dependent upon the conference. The schools have already agreed to do so.

    I've been around this thread since the days of the Land Thieves. This dissolve the conference is just the latest bit of wishful thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bryanw1995 View Post

    That guy hasn't even been posting. Or do you think he's someone's sock, like you?
    Try to stay on topic.

    Are you really afraid to answer this question.

    So you are predicting the ACC does not add any Big 12 teams?

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bryanw1995 View Post

    Wow, I'm so shocked that you would accuse somebody of this.
    I don't accuse, I point out predictable behavior. All you do is focus on me. If you don't like that there is a simple solution.

    So you are predicting the ACC does not add any Big 12 teams?

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by hank970 View Post

    What you think is going to happen (re: realignment) doesn't bother anyone, even the most emotional of us. It's the way you say it. Stop being a jerk.
    My opinion bothers you, that's obvious.

    I am not a jerk to anyone here, I share my opinions and some people get upset because they don't want it to happen, but are afraid it might.

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by RocketCitySooner View Post

    You're still making the error of assuming the conference ceases to exist immediately upon a vote to dissolution.
    That's wishful thinking and isn't how things work. At least some aspects of the conference will continue until all the legal and financial issues are resolved.
    No, I am quite clear that it would run through the end of the athletic season then the TV content of the schools would go back to them since the conference was dissolved. Really simple concept.

    If you want to believe a dissolved conference would still collect TV payments after teams left for new conferences then go for it. You can believe FOX will own OU and UT content in the SEC if you want. But you also have to understand that some people may not agree with that wild assessment you have where you are not even sure who would be collecting the $, why ESPN/FOPX would pay a dissolved conference for a TV contract, and who would get the $ ultimately.


    I hope we get to find out as I believe that is the best path out for OU.

    Leave a comment:


  • FtwTxSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by ICThawk View Post

    You are correct about the Big XII being a 501(c)(3) corp. I did find the IRS filing for 2020.

    I understand that a contract between 2 parties can be amended. But I could not find any authority that such agreement could be amended to adversely a contract between one of the parties to that contract with a third party. A & B can't amend a contract between them that adversely affects a contract between A & C. I believe the legal terminology is either "tortious interference with contract" or "tortious interference with a business relationship". You might want to investigate them further. This might be a good starting point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

    I'm not sure that either of us has brought much to the conversation as we are mostly speaking of assumptions about the TRA of which neither of us has any definitive information. Obviously the contents of the TRA are essential to fully understand the legal situation.
    The whole A and B can't amend a contract that adversely impacts C doesn't really hold water. The term is privity of contract. Parties A and B can have a contract. Parties B and C can have a contract. However, C, as a third party of the contract between A and B has no recourse against any sort of failure or modification of that particular contract between A and B. Contracts are only binding between the parties involved and can not impose an obligation or liability on a third party. It all ends up being every orderly with each contract standing on its own.

    Of course, C can have a claim against B, for any resulting failure in the contract between B and C, but that doesn't preclude changes to other contracts its not a party.

    Though, overall, the GoR going away has no direct impact on the conference providing football games to the networks. Plenty of conferences manage to have football games be televised without one. The potential for problems does ratchet up a few notches, but until a breach occurs, there isn't much that can be done.

    One TRA we do have access is the one involving LHN. It does have a termination clause which includes the dissolution of any party or the discontinuation of business affairs and goes further to state no party can claim consequential or special damages or loss of profits upon termination. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same language in the Big 12 contract as its written very much like boilerplate language.

    Tortious interference would come into play in the case of Fox/B1G attempting to poach teams while under contract.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by Bustarime View Post

    And buying it a wedding ring.
    Best post in a while.

    Leave a comment:


  • ICThawk
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

    The IRS filings are available for you to read. I suggest you do so. They are a 501(3))c). Obviously if you can’t comprehend this simple fact you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation.

    what part of a contract that can be amended if both parties agree don’t you understand?
    You are correct about the Big XII being a 501(c)(3) corp. I did find the IRS filing for 2020.

    I understand that a contract between 2 parties can be amended. But I could not find any authority that such agreement could be amended to adversely a contract between one of the parties to that contract with a third party. A & B can't amend a contract between them that adversely affects a contract between A & C. I believe the legal terminology is either "tortious interference with contract" or "tortious interference with a business relationship". You might want to investigate them further. This might be a good starting point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

    I'm not sure that either of us has brought much to the conversation as we are mostly speaking of assumptions about the TRA of which neither of us has any definitive information. Obviously the contents of the TRA are essential to fully understand the legal situation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bustarime
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post
    When you fiancé a car, the car owner normally is responsible to carry full coverage insurance.
    And buying it a wedding ring.

    Leave a comment:


  • FtwTxSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by ICThawk View Post

    Read the first line or so of the GOR. They are an "inc", a Delaware corporation. It's VERY UNLIKELY (but legally permissible, I suppose) it is a 501(c)(3) if they incorporated in Delaware as most charitable incorporate in the state wherein their chartable activities occur. Also see the IRS "definition" of a 501(c)(3). https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations Who are the stockholders? Remember they can't benefit.

    Before you keep spouting off all these "legal conclusions" (many of which seem to be based on how you WANT it to be, not how the law is) you should really make sure of your FACTS (remember the first three letters of assumption are ASS) and you probably should attend law school, or at least talk to someone who has.
    The IRS filings are available for you to read. I suggest you do so. They are a 501(3))c). Obviously if you can’t comprehend this simple fact you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation.

    what part of a contract that can be amended if both parties agree don’t you understand?
    Last edited by FtwTxSooner; 08-13-2022, 11:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ICThawk
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

    The Big 12 and all other conferences I believe are a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. They aren’t a partnership so no direct liability. One could go after the schools in their role as a director, but it’s a financial claim at that point. The networks aren’t going to get anything with respect to broadcast rights.

    In the case of the Big 12, the conference is only obligated to provide a certain number of games. There is no such term of which schools participate in those games. A&M and Mizzou could easily be swapped out with anyone they do choose. What caused the network heartburn was the Big 13 could expand with Popcorn State and Powderpuff Tech and they had to pay a pro rata increase. ESPN eventually bought out that clause, but Fox still has to take it on the chin.

    There maybe more in terms of the ACC with a network involved, but in the case is the Big 12, the conference is free to do what it chooses.
    Read the first line or so of the GOR. They are an "inc", a Delaware corporation. It's VERY UNLIKELY (but legally permissible, I suppose) it is a 501(c)(3) if they incorporated in Delaware as most charitable incorporate in the state wherein their chartable activities occur. Also see the IRS "definition" of a 501(c)(3). https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations Who are the stockholders? Remember they can't benefit.

    Before you keep spouting off all these "legal conclusions" (many of which seem to be based on how you WANT it to be, not how the law is) you should really make sure of your FACTS (remember the first three letters of assumption are ASS) and you probably should attend law school, or at least talk to someone who has.
    Last edited by ICThawk; 08-13-2022, 11:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SoonerHank
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    Notice how you changed the topic to personal talk. lol.

    Emotional fans are so predictable.

    The reason what I say bothers you is because it's true.

    If you want to debate me on a topic then do it, if you are afraid then don't. Really simple.

    Yes, your post is considered whining. Won't change anything. Just the usual fan stuff.



    So lets see if you really want to whine or talk about realignment.


    So do you think the ACC stays at the current payout level or gets a pay bump?
    #Laffin

    Leave a comment:


  • Trip
    replied
    Originally posted by hank970 View Post

    You've been posting here for a lousy three months and think you're the world's foremost authority on everything. When people disagree with you, you call them names or accuse them of whining or being emotional or ignorant.

    Three months? Au contraire.



    Leave a comment:


  • NJTerp
    replied
    Originally posted by RocketCitySooner View Post

    From the XII Grant of Rights: (please excuse any errors in translation for PDF)
    1. Grant of Rights. Subject to paragraph 4 hereof, each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the Telecast Rights Agreements, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and (b) agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution that are expressly set forth in a Telecast Rights Agreement. The grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph includes, without limitation, (A) the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the Telecast Rights A6, agreements; (B) subject to paragraph 9 hereof, the right to access such Member Institution's facilities for the purposes set forth in and pursuant to the Telecast Rights Agreements; (C) the right of the Conference to create and to own a copyright of the audiovisual work of the Selected Games (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements) of or involving such Member Institution (the "Works") with such rights being, at least, coextensive with 17 U.S.C. 41 l(c); and (D) the present assignment of the entire right, title and interest iri the Works that are created under the Telecast Rights Agreements. For the avoidance of doubt (1) the term "Rights" shall not include any Retained Rights or any other rights granted to or reserved by a Member Institution pursuant to any Telecast Rights Agreement and (2) the grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 shall not be deemed to encompass or accomplish the assignment of an ownership interest in copyrights otherwise mvned by a Member Institution. The Conference and each Member Institution acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, including, without limitation, the grant of Rights pursuant to th.is paragraph 1, shall not be interpreted or construed as an agreement, understanding or conunitment by a Member Institution to grant to a Telecast Partner any right or license to distribute Member Institution Ancillary Programming (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements).
    You'll note:
    - the schools (members) grants to the conference all rights necessary for the conference to perform it's obligation under the Telecast Rights Agreements (TRA) with the nets without limitations whether the schools remain a member of the conference.
    - the schools agree to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations set forth in the TRA.
    - the schools grant to the conference the right to produce and distribute all events covered by the TRA.


    Also these:

    8. Acknowledgement. Each of the Member Institutions acknowledges that the grant of Rights during the entire term is irrevocable and effective until the end of the Term regardless of whether the Member Institution withdraws from the Conference during the Term or otherwise ceases to participate as a full member of the Conference in accordance with the Bylaws.
    9. Reasonable Access. Without any additional consideration or compensation to the Member Institutions, each of the Member Institutions agrees throughout the term to provide the Telecast Partners with reasonable access to its property and facilities, with appropriate ingress and egress, parking, facilities, utilities and lighting, and other support and assistance reasonably required by the Telecast Partners to exercise the Rights as and to the extent provided in the Telecast Rights Agreements.

    - The Grant of Rights is irrevocable even if a member school withdraws from the conference.

    - The schools have to provide the networks access to exercise their rights under the TRA.

    So even if all the members of the conference withdraw, the GOR remains in effect and the schools must allow and facilitate the nets exercising their rights under the TRA.
    Thanks for the documentation. It does seem to confirm what many of us thought, regarding what happens when a school leaves a conference while the GOR is still in effect. What caught my eye though, was that the language is clear that the schools have given their rights to the conference until 2025, period. But yet, the document states twice, I believe, what happens if the school leaves the conference.

    On the other hand, the conference itself, along with the schools, is specifically identified in the document as part of the agreement. Yet, the document makes no mention as to what happens if the conference ceases to exist. There may be legal jargon crap about a conference successor entity that they will stay get paid by the networks without specifying, but one would think the GOR would specify what would happen in that event.

    As such, it is still unclear to me what happens with the GOR if the conference dissolves. Frank the Tank, who is apparently an attorney, while believing dissolution is very difficult, yet believes that if the conference dissolves, the rights would revert back to the schools. And there has been a variety of beliefs by others as to what would happen.

    At this point, it is very highly unlikely the Big 12 will dissolve by 2025. This discussion is provably more relevant for the ACC. I guess there is similar language in their current GOR, but who knows?

    Leave a comment:


  • FtwTxSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by slice1900 View Post


    Even if you could dissolve a conference (whether that would actually require a majority, supermajority, or unanimous vote) that may not be an out. Let's examine a similar circumstance: say you have a small business organized as a corporation (S corp, which is rather common) and you borrow money from a bank to expand, creating a debt for the corporation. If you dissolve the corporation, that debt isn't your responsibility to pay so the bank ends up having to write it off as bad debt. Because of that rather easy out, banks will typically require a lien on assets (like if the small business owns the building where it conducts its trade) or a personal guarantee from the principal owner(s) of the corporation. A lien or personal guarantee survives any dissolution or bankruptcy of the corporation, protecting the bank from anything that ends the existence of the corporation.

    We don't have the TRA and don't know how it is written, but it may have a similar provision to survive dissolution of the conference. Consider the situation where a conference has a TRA it is extremely unhappy with for whatever reason. The conference could in theory vote to dissolve the conference, which would (in theory) free them from the obligations that conference has under the TRA. The schools would form a new conference and negotiate a new TRA, with the same or different telecast rights holder. Is it reasonable to assume it is really that simple?

    This idea assumes that a conference is organized like a corporation. The reason you can dissolve a corporation to get out of any debt it holds (assuming there are no liens or personal guarantees) is because corporations limit liability of shareholders for actions of the corporation - like agreeing to pay a debt. If you dissolve the corporation, the shareholders have no liability for its debt. That's not true for a partnership, if you are in a partnership with two or more people and the partnership agrees to pay a debt, if the partnership is later dissolved each of the partners is liable for a share of that debt. So before people get too excited about this idea of dissolving a conference to end obligations to a broadcast partner, maybe someone needs to figure out exactly what they are, legally. Is it a corporation? A partnership? Something else?

    It seems to me that an organization like ESPN signing conferences up for 20 year long contracts would not leave out in plain view a way to end the contract whenever the conference wants through dissolution. Either dissolution does not free them from the obligation (i.e. it is more like a partnership than a corporation) or there is a clause in the TRA the schools have to sign to guarantee their performance under the TRA even if the conference no longer exists. To do otherwise would be akin to giving them a clause allowing the conference to terminate the TRA at any time they want. The SEC was unhappy for years with the money they were getting in their 20 year long CBS T1 contract. Why didn't they dissolve and renegotiate their rights when they added A&M and Missouri if it is that easy?
    The Big 12 and all other conferences I believe are a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. They aren’t a partnership so no direct liability. One could go after the schools in their role as a director, but it’s a financial claim at that point. The networks aren’t going to get anything with respect to broadcast rights.

    In the case of the Big 12, the conference is only obligated to provide a certain number of games. There is no such term of which schools participate in those games. A&M and Mizzou could easily be swapped out with anyone they do choose. What caused the network heartburn was the Big 13 could expand with Popcorn State and Powderpuff Tech and they had to pay a pro rata increase. ESPN eventually bought out that clause, but Fox still has to take it on the chin.

    There maybe more in terms of the ACC with a network involved, but in the case is the Big 12, the conference is free to do what it chooses.
    Last edited by FtwTxSooner; 08-13-2022, 04:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by Notre Dame Joe View Post

    I think we have seen if the T2 enter the conference the T1 look around. In this case if UCF enters the ACC, FSU starts getting frantic that they are being seen as the peer of their hired help.

    @TX, UCF and Cincy make no sense in the great plains conference of small school Texas and Kansas. There is no locality, no history, no cultural or institutional similarity. This is another Franken-Conference that Natalie Merchant would tell you, Just Can't Last.
    Kind of like Rutgers and USC.

    Leave a comment:


  • FtwTxSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by RocketCitySooner View Post

    Certainly, but the issue isn't the agreement between the conferences and the schools.
    The issue is the contract between the conference and the networks which it appears is also binding on the individual schools.
    One fairly universal principal of contract law is this, a change in one contract cannot change a different contract. You can make all the changes you want to the GOR and that won't affect the contract with the networks.

    You can disband the conference, but the schools are still obligated to provide access and the necessary facilities to the networks to televise the games.

    That the dissolution of the conference breaks the GOR is an article of faith among those who wish to advance conference realignment. The networks had very expensive and experienced lawyers develop the GOR who would have foreseen such a possibility and included provisions to avoid that issue. BTW, haven't seen you address Frank The Tanks' take on dissolving the GOR.

    LOL. When you lost the argument you just start making shit up. The schools have no obligation to the networks. The conference does. The Big 12 was free to swap out schools at its will. The contracts aren’t for specific schools they are for the conferences itself. The Big 12 was able to swap our A&M and Mizzou for TCU and WVU. A&M and Mizzou had no obligation whatsoever on the networks.

    When you fiancé a car, the car owner normally is responsible to carry full coverage insurance. The car buyer can get Allstate to cover their car, but that does not prevent Allstate, a third party to the bank / car buyer contract from cancelling the insurance policy.


    Contracts get broken all the time when one party feels it’s financially advantageous to do so even after any sort of breach of contract claims are adjudicated

    In the case of the Big 12, it’s just Fox that would want to assert any sort of claim. That can be paid out by the conference headquarters building or the replay command center equipment. The schools themselves will keep their rights as the conference is free to transfer them back at whatever buyout amount they do choose

    Leave a comment:


  • slice1900
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post
    This would be a case where the conference itself wishes to dissolve. A super majority vote can put in a commissioner that wishes to do so. The GoR really just prevents the case where a small number of schools wishes to go. Once you reach a super majority of schools all bets are off.

    Even if you could dissolve a conference (whether that would actually require a majority, supermajority, or unanimous vote) that may not be an out. Let's examine a similar circumstance: say you have a small business organized as a corporation (S corp, which is rather common) and you borrow money from a bank to expand, creating a debt for the corporation. If you dissolve the corporation, that debt isn't your responsibility to pay so the bank ends up having to write it off as bad debt. Because of that rather easy out, banks will typically require a lien on assets (like if the small business owns the building where it conducts its trade) or a personal guarantee from the principal owner(s) of the corporation. A lien or personal guarantee survives any dissolution or bankruptcy of the corporation, protecting the bank from anything that ends the existence of the corporation.

    We don't have the TRA and don't know how it is written, but it may have a similar provision to survive dissolution of the conference. Consider the situation where a conference has a TRA it is extremely unhappy with for whatever reason. The conference could in theory vote to dissolve the conference, which would (in theory) free them from the obligations that conference has under the TRA. The schools would form a new conference and negotiate a new TRA, with the same or different telecast rights holder. Is it reasonable to assume it is really that simple?

    This idea assumes that a conference is organized like a corporation. The reason you can dissolve a corporation to get out of any debt it holds (assuming there are no liens or personal guarantees) is because corporations limit liability of shareholders for actions of the corporation - like agreeing to pay a debt. If you dissolve the corporation, the shareholders have no liability for its debt. That's not true for a partnership, if you are in a partnership with two or more people and the partnership agrees to pay a debt, if the partnership is later dissolved each of the partners is liable for a share of that debt. So before people get too excited about this idea of dissolving a conference to end obligations to a broadcast partner, maybe someone needs to figure out exactly what they are, legally. Is it a corporation? A partnership? Something else?

    It seems to me that an organization like ESPN signing conferences up for 20 year long contracts would not leave out in plain view a way to end the contract whenever the conference wants through dissolution. Either dissolution does not free them from the obligation (i.e. it is more like a partnership than a corporation) or there is a clause in the TRA the schools have to sign to guarantee their performance under the TRA even if the conference no longer exists. To do otherwise would be akin to giving them a clause allowing the conference to terminate the TRA at any time they want. The SEC was unhappy for years with the money they were getting in their 20 year long CBS T1 contract. Why didn't they dissolve and renegotiate their rights when they added A&M and Missouri if it is that easy?

    Leave a comment:


  • XLance
    replied
    Originally posted by Notre Dame Joe View Post

    I think we have seen if the T2 enter the conference the T1 look around. In this case if UCF enters the ACC, FSU starts getting frantic that they are being seen as the peer of their hired help.

    @TX, UCF and Cincy make no sense in the great plains conference of small school Texas and Kansas. There is no locality, no history, no cultural or institutional similarity. This is another Franken-Conference that Natalie Merchant would tell you, Just Can't Last.
    If ESPN makes suggestions that they guarantee will enhance the conference and increase income, I'm sure the ACC will heed their wishes.

    Leave a comment:


  • RocketCitySooner
    replied
    Originally posted by ICThawk View Post

    Thank You. Now if we could get the TRA (which is probably "confidential).
    I've read in multiple places that the TRA has not been released. Remember Baylor is a private school.

    Leave a comment:


  • RocketCitySooner
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

    None of that precludes a subsequent agreement between the conference and the schools to invalidate the previous agreement. If both parties to a contract wish to change that contract, they can do so. A previous contract can in no way bind the hands of both parties from making a subsequent agreement.

    This would be a case where the conference itself wishes to dissolve. A super majority vote can put in a commissioner that wishes to do so. The GoR really just prevents the case where a small number of schools wishes to go. Once you reach a super majority of schools all bets are off.
    Certainly, but the issue isn't the agreement between the conferences and the schools.
    The issue is the contract between the conference and the networks which it appears is also binding on the individual schools.
    One fairly universal principal of contract law is this, a change in one contract cannot change a different contract. You can make all the changes you want to the GOR and that won't affect the contract with the networks.

    You can disband the conference, but the schools are still obligated to provide access and the necessary facilities to the networks to televise the games.

    That the dissolution of the conference breaks the GOR is an article of faith among those who wish to advance conference realignment. The networks had very expensive and experienced lawyers develop the GOR who would have foreseen such a possibility and included provisions to avoid that issue. BTW, haven't seen you address Frank The Tanks' take on dissolving the GOR.
    Last edited by RocketCitySooner; 08-13-2022, 03:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Notre Dame Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by Bryanw1995 View Post

    Those 2 certainly make sense regionally, but they're moving the needle in the wrong direction. Perhaps they'd be considered as preemptive backfill for the future departures I suppose, but as they're both already in a stable conference that's been through the picked-over phase, it seems like they're better off long term in the big12. Hmm, maybe not, from their perspective they have 14 years to get more money and have less travel, then they can figure out where to go after that.
    I think we have seen if the T2 enter the conference the T1 look around. In this case if UCF enters the ACC, FSU starts getting frantic that they are being seen as the peer of their hired help.

    @TX, UCF and Cincy make no sense in the great plains conference of small school Texas and Kansas. There is no locality, no history, no cultural or institutional similarity. This is another Franken-Conference that Natalie Merchant would tell you, Just Can't Last.

    Leave a comment:


  • FtwTxSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by RocketCitySooner View Post

    From the XII Grant of Rights: (please excuse any errors in translation for PDF)
    1. Grant of Rights. Subject to paragraph 4 hereof, each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the Telecast Rights Agreements, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and (b) agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution that are expressly set forth in a Telecast Rights Agreement. The grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph includes, without limitation, (A) the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the Telecast Rights A6, agreements; (B) subject to paragraph 9 hereof, the right to access such Member Institution's facilities for the purposes set forth in and pursuant to the Telecast Rights Agreements; (C) the right of the Conference to create and to own a copyright of the audiovisual work of the Selected Games (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements) of or involving such Member Institution (the "Works") with such rights being, at least, coextensive with 17 U.S.C. 41 l(c); and (D) the present assignment of the entire right, title and interest iri the Works that are created under the Telecast Rights Agreements. For the avoidance of doubt (1) the term "Rights" shall not include any Retained Rights or any other rights granted to or reserved by a Member Institution pursuant to any Telecast Rights Agreement and (2) the grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 shall not be deemed to encompass or accomplish the assignment of an ownership interest in copyrights otherwise mvned by a Member Institution. The Conference and each Member Institution acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, including, without limitation, the grant of Rights pursuant to th.is paragraph 1, shall not be interpreted or construed as an agreement, understanding or conunitment by a Member Institution to grant to a Telecast Partner any right or license to distribute Member Institution Ancillary Programming (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements).
    You'll note:
    - the schools (members) grants to the conference all rights necessary for the conference to perform it's obligation under the Telecast Rights Agreements (TRA) with the nets without limitations whether the schools remain a member of the conference.
    - the schools agree to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations set forth in the TRA.
    - the schools grant to the conference the right to produce and distribute all events covered by the TRA.


    Also these:

    8. Acknowledgement. Each of the Member Institutions acknowledges that the grant of Rights during the entire term is irrevocable and effective until the end of the Term regardless of whether the Member Institution withdraws from the Conference during the Term or otherwise ceases to participate as a full member of the Conference in accordance with the Bylaws.
    9. Reasonable Access. Without any additional consideration or compensation to the Member Institutions, each of the Member Institutions agrees throughout the term to provide the Telecast Partners with reasonable access to its property and facilities, with appropriate ingress and egress, parking, facilities, utilities and lighting, and other support and assistance reasonably required by the Telecast Partners to exercise the Rights as and to the extent provided in the Telecast Rights Agreements.

    - The Grant of Rights is irrevocable even if a member school withdraws from the conference.

    - The schools have to provide the networks access to exercise their rights under the TRA.

    So even if all the members of the conference withdraw, the GOR remains in effect and the schools must allow and facilitate the nets exercising their rights under the TRA.
    None of that precludes a subsequent agreement between the conference and the schools to invalidate the previous agreement. If both parties to a contract wish to change that contract, they can do so. A previous contract can in no way bind the hands of both parties from making a subsequent agreement.

    This would be a case where the conference itself wishes to dissolve. A super majority vote can put in a commissioner that wishes to do so. The GoR really just prevents the case where a small number of schools wishes to go. Once you reach a super majority of schools all bets are off.

    Leave a comment:


  • ICThawk
    replied
    Thank You. Now if we could get the TRA (which is probably "confidential).

    Leave a comment:


  • RocketCitySooner
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

    You still are making the mistake that the networks own the rights to air OU, UT, fOSU, TCU … games. They don’t. They have rights to Big 12 conference games which as no members if it dissolves.

    The schools themselves have claims against a conference that dissolves Those are going to be resolved first with the schools getting their rights back from a conference that has no members and no prospects for monetizing those rights.

    Certainly the networks can assert a claim, but they are in a much weaker position. They stop paying and that resolves most of the problem. Whatever is left can be cut from whatever cash the conference has on hand or try to sue the directors if they think they did anything wrong.

    This is a chapter 7 bankruptcy. It’s liquidation time. There aren’t going to be any ongoing operations. The first step is taking care of the entitles that get paid by the conference, which are the schools. Good luck spending your Circuit City gift card.

    One other thing, if the conference has the votes to dissolve, they also have the votes to amend and terminate the GoR. This whole thing becomes moot at that point with the only thing left is a shell of a conference without any members. For the Big 12, if it drops below 10 members, its current TV deal gets terminated as well as per the terms of the contract.
    From the XII Grant of Rights: (please excuse any errors in translation for PDF)
    1. Grant of Rights. Subject to paragraph 4 hereof, each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the Telecast Rights Agreements, regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term and (b) agrees to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations of a Member Institution that are expressly set forth in a Telecast Rights Agreement. The grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph includes, without limitation, (A) the right to produce and distribute all events of such Member Institution that are subject to the Telecast Rights A6, agreements; (B) subject to paragraph 9 hereof, the right to access such Member Institution's facilities for the purposes set forth in and pursuant to the Telecast Rights Agreements; (C) the right of the Conference to create and to own a copyright of the audiovisual work of the Selected Games (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements) of or involving such Member Institution (the "Works") with such rights being, at least, coextensive with 17 U.S.C. 41 l(c); and (D) the present assignment of the entire right, title and interest iri the Works that are created under the Telecast Rights Agreements. For the avoidance of doubt (1) the term "Rights" shall not include any Retained Rights or any other rights granted to or reserved by a Member Institution pursuant to any Telecast Rights Agreement and (2) the grant of Rights pursuant to this paragraph 1 shall not be deemed to encompass or accomplish the assignment of an ownership interest in copyrights otherwise mvned by a Member Institution. The Conference and each Member Institution acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, including, without limitation, the grant of Rights pursuant to th.is paragraph 1, shall not be interpreted or construed as an agreement, understanding or conunitment by a Member Institution to grant to a Telecast Partner any right or license to distribute Member Institution Ancillary Programming (as defined in the Telecast Rights Agreements).
    You'll note:
    - the schools (members) grants to the conference all rights necessary for the conference to perform it's obligation under the Telecast Rights Agreements (TRA) with the nets without limitations whether the schools remain a member of the conference.
    - the schools agree to satisfy and perform all contractual obligations set forth in the TRA.
    - the schools grant to the conference the right to produce and distribute all events covered by the TRA.


    Also these:

    8. Acknowledgement. Each of the Member Institutions acknowledges that the grant of Rights during the entire term is irrevocable and effective until the end of the Term regardless of whether the Member Institution withdraws from the Conference during the Term or otherwise ceases to participate as a full member of the Conference in accordance with the Bylaws.
    9. Reasonable Access. Without any additional consideration or compensation to the Member Institutions, each of the Member Institutions agrees throughout the term to provide the Telecast Partners with reasonable access to its property and facilities, with appropriate ingress and egress, parking, facilities, utilities and lighting, and other support and assistance reasonably required by the Telecast Partners to exercise the Rights as and to the extent provided in the Telecast Rights Agreements.

    - The Grant of Rights is irrevocable even if a member school withdraws from the conference.

    - The schools have to provide the networks access to exercise their rights under the TRA.

    So even if all the members of the conference withdraw, the GOR remains in effect and the schools must allow and facilitate the nets exercising their rights under the TRA.

    Leave a comment:


  • RocketCitySooner
    replied
    Originally posted by ICThawk View Post

    Please provide a link to the GOR so I can read it myself. Thank You.
    https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uplo...f-Rights-1.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • ICThawk
    replied
    Originally posted by FtwTxSooner View Post

    You still are making the mistake that the networks own the rights to air OU, UT, fOSU, TCU … games. They don’t. They have rights to Big 12 conference games which as no members if it dissolves.

    The schools themselves have claims against a conference that dissolves Those are going to be resolved first with the schools getting their rights back from a conference that has no members and no prospects for monetizing those rights.

    Certainly the networks can assert a claim, but they are in a much weaker position. They stop paying and that resolves most of the problem. Whatever is left can be cut from whatever cash the conference has on hand or try to sue the directors if they think they did anything wrong.

    This is a chapter 7 bankruptcy. It’s liquidation time. There aren’t going to be any ongoing operations. The first step is taking care of the entitles that get paid by the conference, which are the schools. Good luck spending your Circuit City gift card.

    One other thing, if the conference has the votes to dissolve, they also have the votes to amend and terminate the GoR. This whole thing becomes moot at that point with the only thing left is a shell of a conference without any members. For the Big 12, if it drops below 10 members, its current TV deal gets terminated as well as per the terms of the contract.
    Please provide a link to the GOR so I can read it myself. Thank You.

    Leave a comment:


  • hank970
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    Notice how you changed the topic to personal talk. lol.

    Emotional fans are so predictable.

    The reason what I say bothers you is because it's true.

    If you want to debate me on a topic then do it, if you are afraid then don't. Really simple.

    Yes, your post is considered whining. Won't change anything. Just the usual fan stuff.



    So lets see if you really want to whine or talk about realignment.


    So do you think the ACC stays at the current payout level or gets a pay bump?
    What you think is going to happen (re: realignment) doesn't bother anyone, even the most emotional of us. It's the way you say it. Stop being a jerk.

    Leave a comment:


  • WoadBlue
    replied
    Originally posted by XLance View Post



    I am hearing that it could possibly be: West Virginia and UCF. Cincinnati is "out".

    That would still leave every school in the ACC all within the ETZ (even the ACC's part time member Notre Dame is in the ETZ) ......a blessing for network scheduling.
    If I were FSU or Miami, I would oppose UCF unless ESPN was committed to paying big bucks to add UCF.

    Leave a comment:


  • FtwTxSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by RocketCitySooner View Post

    You're still making the error of assuming the conference ceases to exist immediately upon a vote to dissolution.
    That's wishful thinking and isn't how things work. At least some aspects of the conference will continue until all the legal and financial issues are resolved.
    You still are making the mistake that the networks own the rights to air OU, UT, fOSU, TCU … games. They don’t. They have rights to Big 12 conference games which as no members if it dissolves.

    The schools themselves have claims against a conference that dissolves Those are going to be resolved first with the schools getting their rights back from a conference that has no members and no prospects for monetizing those rights.

    Certainly the networks can assert a claim, but they are in a much weaker position. They stop paying and that resolves most of the problem. Whatever is left can be cut from whatever cash the conference has on hand or try to sue the directors if they think they did anything wrong.

    This is a chapter 7 bankruptcy. It’s liquidation time. There aren’t going to be any ongoing operations. The first step is taking care of the entitles that get paid by the conference, which are the schools. Good luck spending your Circuit City gift card.

    One other thing, if the conference has the votes to dissolve, they also have the votes to amend and terminate the GoR. This whole thing becomes moot at that point with the only thing left is a shell of a conference without any members. For the Big 12, if it drops below 10 members, its current TV deal gets terminated as well as per the terms of the contract.
    Last edited by FtwTxSooner; 08-12-2022, 07:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • XLance
    replied
    Originally posted by Bryanw1995 View Post

    Those 2 certainly make sense regionally, but they're moving the needle in the wrong direction. Perhaps they'd be considered as preemptive backfill for the future departures I suppose, but as they're both already in a stable conference that's been through the picked-over phase, it seems like they're better off long term in the big12. Hmm, maybe not, from their perspective they have 14 years to get more money and have less travel, then they can figure out where to go after that.



    future departures ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    Notice how you changed the topic to personal talk. lol.

    Emotional fans are so predictable
    That guy hasn't even been posting. Or do you think he's someone's sock, like you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    It's obvious who is getting emotional on this boar
    Wow, I'm so shocked that you would accuse somebody of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by John Swofford View Post
    Cincy would make more sense as they would provide a new state.

    Interesting
    Perhaps Cincy has reason to believe that the big12 will have a competitive network contract and perhaps, hilariously, now offers more stability? He didn't say that the ACC wasn't interested in Cincy, just that they were now off the table.

    Leave a comment:


  • RocketCitySooner
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post
    Thanks for clarifying. I do not agree with your assessment.

    So you think if the Big 12 dissolves and OU/UT move to the SEC that FOX still owns half their content as members of the SEC.

    I think that schools can't grant rights to a conference that does not exits and OU and UT would be 100-% owned by ESPN in the SEC in that scenario.
    You're still making the error of assuming the conference ceases to exist immediately upon a vote to dissolution.
    That's wishful thinking and isn't how things work. At least some aspects of the conference will continue until all the legal and financial issues are resolved.

    Leave a comment:


  • WoadBlue
    replied
    Originally posted by FoCoSooner View Post

    That does not pass the smell test. UCF would add very little income to the ACC. Cinci would get Ohio on board with ACCN bringing a lot of value.

    With the ACC owning half of ACCN any pay increases are likely to come at least in part from ACCN income. States like Ohio and Texas would be worth a lot to ACCN.


    I'd even put UCF's chances of getting out of the Big 12 below KSU and ISU.
    I understand why some think UCF is worth something to the ACC. But as we have 2 schools in FL already, it cannot help with the ACCN, nor with recruiting FL talent. And it dos not have a 60K stadium, much less 80K. WVU and Cincy make more sense, from combination of new states (and OH loaded with talent) and location that would make for both renewal of rivalries (WVU-Pitt, WVU-VT, WVU-Cuse, Cincy-Louisville) and some new ones that could become hot (Cincy-Pitt, WVU-UVA, WVU-NCSU, WVU-UNC, WVU-Cincy).

    Leave a comment:


  • John Swofford
    replied
    UCF makes so little sense it is probably true.

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by XLance View Post



    I am hearing that it could possibly be: West Virginia and UCF. Cincinnati is "out".

    That would still leave every school in the ACC all within the ETZ (even the ACC's part time member Notre Dame is in the ETZ) ......a blessing for network scheduling.
    That does not pass the smell test. UCF would add very little income to the ACC. Cinci would get Ohio on board with ACCN bringing a lot of value.

    With the ACC owning half of ACCN any pay increases are likely to come at least in part from ACCN income. States like Ohio and Texas would be worth a lot to ACCN.


    I'd even put UCF's chances of getting out of the Big 12 below KSU and ISU.

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bryanw1995 View Post

    Those 2 certainly make sense regionally, but they're moving the needle in the wrong direction. Perhaps they'd be considered as preemptive backfill for the future departures I suppose, but as they're both already in a stable conference that's been through the picked-over phase, it seems like they're better off long term in the big12. Hmm, maybe not, from their perspective they have 14 years to get more money and have less travel, then they can figure out where to go after that.
    So you are predicting the ACC does not add any Big 12 teams?

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by hank970 View Post

    You've been posting here for a lousy three months and think you're the world's foremost authority on everything. When people disagree with you, you call them names or accuse them of whining or being emotional or ignorant. Instead of being a flame-thrower, why not just defend the merits of your opinions, if any, and stop the ad hominem attacks? You're not doing yourself any favors.
    Notice how you changed the topic to personal talk. lol.

    Emotional fans are so predictable.

    The reason what I say bothers you is because it's true.

    If you want to debate me on a topic then do it, if you are afraid then don't. Really simple.

    Yes, your post is considered whining. Won't change anything. Just the usual fan stuff.



    So lets see if you really want to whine or talk about realignment.


    So do you think the ACC stays at the current payout level or gets a pay bump?

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by John Swofford View Post

    Clemson wouldn't care.

    I doubt UCF is even considered.
    I agree on UCF. They will most likely end up back in the AAC when the dust settles. No real path out for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Bryanw1995 View Post

    I care a lot about what happens one College, and because of that, I care somewhat about one Conference, and that's the extent of my emotional interest in these evens. As A&M is highly unlikely to be impacted in any way by future bigPacACC drama, I'm just here b/c I find the whole thing very interesting. Some of your posts are quite good, but some are quite inflammatory, maybe if you'd cut out the insults we could all have more good conversations.



    I haven't said that the ACC is stuck at 14, nor have I said they won't get a pay bump unless they add value. I have said that I'm struggling to see how anybody left will add SIGNIFICANT value for them.

    Let's think about it like this: The ACC currently gets ~ $36m per team, and they have 14 teams. If they add one team, then the pot will be split 15 ways. The new team has to bring in $36m worth of value just to be revenue neutral, then they have to add another $15m worth of value just to add another $1m to everybody. So, the new team needs $51m value, which we can all agree is not enough to convince either the ACC to add a team or ESPN to give them extra money even if they do. Ok, what about $66m? $81m? It takes $81m in added value to add a whopping $3m to each school's payout. But, who out there is worth $81m? Or even $66m? I you had one worth $81m and one at $66m that still only gets you $5m. The problem is, ND is the only one, there's nobody else even close to the $66m number. Everyone else has already been passed over by the P2 b/c they didn't bring enough value. And again, remember that this is not a new, separate negotiation, but rather a look-in period. ESPN holds the cards here, and the ACC is nowhere close to being their Favorite Son.

    I was talking the other day about a 4 team conference playoff with ND eligible, something like that could add value, especially if they do add the best of what's still available. I've seen some other ideas thrown about, as well, and some of those might add a bit of value here or there. But nothing out there is going to get them an extra $10m, probably not even every single idea out there combined does that, and they're still going to lose their top programs in 14 years (or sooner ofc). If I was the ACC, I'd be planning for what you want the conference to look like post-2036 and try to add schools now that will make that future conference better.
    It's obvious who is getting emotional on this board, just read the posts. When people get upset, change the subject, go personal, conspiracy theories, etc you know they are emotional. Congrats.


    LOL, you are already trying to change your position.

    Lets just keep it real simple to see if you can decide what you believe.

    So do you think the ACC is going to get a pay bump or not?

    Leave a comment:


  • FoCoSooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Notre Dame Joe View Post

    Whom can the ACC take that adds value? It seems like they are landlocked.

    I presume FSU&Miami would leave if any other Florida schools are considered.

    I wouldn't mind seeing WVU and Cincy in the ACC but Clemson might.
    This has been discussed quite a bit. The real opportunity is for ACCN to expand in places like Ohio and Texas. WVU offers some upside but not for ACCN.

    I'd guess they end up adding 2 of WVU, Baylor, Cinci.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Swofford
    replied
    Originally posted by Bryanw1995 View Post

    Those 2 certainly make sense regionally, but they're moving the needle in the wrong direction. Perhaps they'd be considered as preemptive backfill for the future departures I suppose, but as they're both already in a stable conference that's been through the picked-over phase, it seems like they're better off long term in the big12. Hmm, maybe not, from their perspective they have 14 years to get more money and have less travel, then they can figure out where to go after that.
    "Future departures" assumes the money thing doesn't improve. There is no way of knowing that yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Swofford
    replied
    Cincy would make more sense as they would provide a new state.

    Interesting

    Leave a comment:


  • Bryanw1995
    replied
    Originally posted by XLance View Post



    I am hearing that it could possibly be: West Virginia and UCF. Cincinnati is "out".

    That would still leave every school in the ACC all within the ETZ (even the ACC's part time member Notre Dame is in the ETZ) ......a blessing for network scheduling.
    Those 2 certainly make sense regionally, but they're moving the needle in the wrong direction. Perhaps they'd be considered as preemptive backfill for the future departures I suppose, but as they're both already in a stable conference that's been through the picked-over phase, it seems like they're better off long term in the big12. Hmm, maybe not, from their perspective they have 14 years to get more money and have less travel, then they can figure out where to go after that.

    Leave a comment:


  • XLance
    replied
    Originally posted by Notre Dame Joe View Post

    Whom can the ACC take that adds value? It seems like they are landlocked.

    I presume FSU&Miami would leave if any other Florida schools are considered.

    I wouldn't mind seeing WVU and Cincy in the ACC but Clemson might.


    I am hearing that it could possibly be: West Virginia and UCF. Cincinnati is "out".

    That would still leave every school in the ACC all within the ETZ (even the ACC's part time member Notre Dame is in the ETZ) ......a blessing for network scheduling.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Go To Top

Collapse

Working...
X
UA-124223861-1