PDA

View Full Version : Sporting News story says UNCCH has offer from Big 1*



dball
02-20-2013, 03:05 PM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-02-20/big-ten-expansion-north-carolina-virginia-georgia-tech-acc

Article says UNC has been offered and lists UVA as likely to join. Original source is 247Sports.com which broke the MD story.

subzero02
02-20-2013, 03:12 PM
Unreal... It doesn't seem like the dust is settling anytime soon

A-Tex Devil
02-20-2013, 03:20 PM
Big Ten has reportedly offered UNC.

I've followed the rumor mill in the last few months since the Maryland move, but nothing ever made a major publication, so in my view, wasn't worth mentioning here. A lot of it was pretty humorous. It's interesting that the Sporting News decided to pick this up now, though, and I think it's because Jeff Ermann was out in front of the MD --> Big Ten thing last fall.

This is one of 3 things:

1. True.
2. Absolute horse-hockey -- and there is a ton of merit to that since the fashion forward approach to realignment is not asking someone to dance until you know they'll say yes.
3. This is a backchannel move by Big Ten to put pressure on schools that might be (relatively) more likely to leave (Ga Tech or Virginia) than UNC.

From a common sense perspective, I still think the first shoe to drop, if any, won't happen until after the MD/ACC suit plays out. MD made some really compelling arguments with respect to the exit fee and the ACC bylaws that are, on their face, a bit damning. But I don't have all of the facts, and that was a MD-leaning pleading, obviously. Will be interested to see how the ACC responds (and they may have already).

[MODS - PERHAPS LOCK OTHER THREAD]

hudlow
02-20-2013, 03:27 PM
UNC-CH's athletic/academic activities of late beg for a clean start and they can't dominate the ACC anymore... so I say don't let the door hit you in the Tar Arse....

superdave
02-20-2013, 03:37 PM
From a common sense perspective, I still think the first shoe to drop, if any, won't happen until after the MD/ACC suit plays out. MD made some really compelling arguments with respect to the exit fee and the ACC bylaws that are, on their face, a bit damning. But I don't have all of the facts, and that was a MD-leaning pleading, obviously. Will be interested to see how the ACC responds (and they may have already).

[MODS - PERHAPS LOCK OTHER THREAD]

What is the timeframe for Maryland exit fee lawsuit? It's probably in the interests of the Terps to get it done quickly, right?

A-Tex Devil
02-20-2013, 03:43 PM
UNC-CH's athletic/academic activities of late beg for a clean start and they can't dominate the ACC anymore... so I say don't let the door hit you in the Tar Arse....

Unless you are of the camp that thinks Duke can stay relevant in basketball and let its other sports move to something like the Southern Conference, or remain in a neutered, locked out, ACC (and I'm not sure that is a "wrong" position, per se, although not mine), what Carolina does or does not do is of the utmost importance to Duke's athletic department remaining in whatever circle has access to the football playoffs, and the money that goes with it.

I think and hope that, despite the rivalry between the sidelines, there is some loyalty between Duke and UNC when it comes to where the schools want to be when everything shakes out. Obviously, the first choice is a strong, stable ACC. I still believe that is the most likely outcome. But if the Big Ten swoops in again and snags two more teams, things will need to be re-evaluated.

sagegrouse
02-20-2013, 03:57 PM
What is the timeframe for Maryland exit fee lawsuit? It's probably in the interests of the Terps to get it done quickly, right?

Not really. The lead attorney is the very good Maryland attorney-general Doug Gansler IIRC (UVa JD). The suit is political as well as business. The Terps are headed to the Big Ten either way, so I think they'll fight it for 4-5 years.

sagegrouse

Atlanta Duke
02-20-2013, 03:58 PM
I would not count on UNC considering how Duke will be impacted (it's nothing personal - it's strictly business). But any possibility that the NC state legislature might get involved if UNC departing to the Big 10, combined with a UVA departure, might blow up the ACC and leave NC State in the lurch? I recall the VA state legislature muscled UVA to push for VA Tech being admitted to the ACC during any earlier round of conference turmoil. With regard to UVA, if they leave I could see the Big 12 reaching out to VA Tech.

It's all about the television markets - losing DC and Atlanta would clobber the ACC

A-Tex Devil
02-20-2013, 03:58 PM
What is the timeframe for Maryland exit fee lawsuit? It's probably in the interests of the Terps to get it done quickly, right?

I've only read up on some of the suit, but I don't think that the ACC is trying to prevent the move unless it gets paid. Maryland is gone after this year. The Big East had the notice requirement in its bylaws that had to be dealt with, so that was a different animal. So while Maryland would want to get it done so it knows how much it's on the hook for, I don't think there is the same urgency as there was for West Virginia (or the Big XII).

I imagine the exit fee law suit will end up settling, but I also think that, based on the claims Maryland itself is making re: when the $50MM exit fee SHOULD have gone into effect (I believe MD says it wouldn't take effect for a year -- or something like that), there will be pressure on teams that might want to leave to $%^& or get off the pot before the exit fee actually gets more teeth.

hudlow
02-20-2013, 04:01 PM
And the Terps need a rival...

uh_no
02-20-2013, 04:03 PM
I would not count on UNC considering how Duke will be impacted (it's nothing personal - it's strictly business). But any possibility that the NC state legislature might get involved if UNC departing to the Big 10, combined with a UVA departure, might blow up the ACC and leave NC State in the lurch? I recall the VA state legislature muscled UVA to push for VA Tech being admitted to the ACC during any earlier round of conference turmoil. With regard to UVA, if they leave I could see the Big 12 reaching out to VA Tech.

It's all about the television markets - losing DC and Atlanta would clobber the ACC

I think the only thing that would stop this if UNC was set on leaving would be the legislature saying UNC and NCSU were a package....whether they would do such a thing, who knows, but it's at least a possibility.

either way, there will be schools left for a conference....Uconn, cincinnatti and USF have all been grovelling and need a landing spot

sagegrouse
02-20-2013, 04:04 PM
Unless you are of the camp that thinks Duke can stay relevant in basketball and let its other sports move to something like the Southern Conference, or remain in a neutered, locked out, ACC (and I'm not sure that is a "wrong" position, per se, although not mine), what Carolina does or does not do is of the utmost importance to Duke's athletic department remaining in whatever circle has access to the football playoffs, and the money that goes with it.

I think and hope that, despite the rivalry between the sidelines, there is some loyalty between Duke and UNC when it comes to where the schools want to be when everything shakes out. Obviously, the first choice is a strong, stable ACC. I still believe that is the most likely outcome. But if the Big Ten swoops in again and snags two more teams, things will need to be re-evaluated.

While I am justifiably sentimental about the "Old ACC," I am fine with UNC AND Duke moving together to the Big Ten as the "second-best" solution.

And IMHO (where the H is always silent) Duke would be a heckuva catch for any conference -- highest undergraduate academic prestige of any in the Big Ten; strong research university on a par with Michigan; most popular (and most hated) single college sports program in the US of A (or, at least, tied with Notre Dame and Bama football); pretty darned good athletics revenue and facilities (top 3-4 in income in the ACC); improving football; excellent Olympic sports. The bookend to a UNC transfer.

sagegrouse

loran16
02-20-2013, 04:05 PM
I would not count on UNC considering how Duke will be impacted (it's nothing personal - it's strictly business). But any possibility that the NC state legislature might get involved if UNC departing to the Big 10, combined with a UVA departure, might blow up the ACC and leave NC State in the lurch? I recall the VA state legislature muscled UVA to push for VA Tech being admitted to the ACC during any earlier round of conference turmoil. With regard to UVA, if they leave I could see the Big 12 reaching out to VA Tech.

It's all about the television markets - losing DC and Atlanta would clobber the ACC

The answer is yes. I'd think UNC might be forced to drag State along rather than Duke.

sagegrouse
02-20-2013, 04:09 PM
The answer is yes. I'd think UNC might be forced to drag State along rather than Duke.

Naw! Never happen and State would not be welcome in the Big Ten. The comparable situation, UVa being forced to vote only for VPI in ACC expansion was just that -- a vote about expansion not a vote about moving conferences. Do you really think, in comparison, that the Virginia legislature would look up from its latest gerrymandering project and block a UVa move to the Big Ten because VPI was not included?

sagegrouse
'Isn't Gerrymander the name of a steak house near the Capitol in Richmond?'

Olympic Fan
02-20-2013, 04:11 PM
This is an awful lot of furor over something that's purely internet hokum.

Not happening.

Jarhead
02-20-2013, 04:14 PM
This is an awful lot of furor over something that's purely internet hokum.

Not happening.

Where have all the journalists gone? They're not in the media anymore, it seems.

pfrduke
02-20-2013, 04:18 PM
either way, there will be schools left for a conference....Uconn, cincinnatti and USF have all been grovelling and need a landing spot

What a sad sack of a conference that would be.

uh_no
02-20-2013, 04:21 PM
What a sad sack of a conference that would be.

with UNC, Miami, FSU, and GT, the conference is already half full of cheaters
with UNC and now Syracuse, it's clear that the conference doesn't give a hoot about the academics of its athletes

Jim3k
02-20-2013, 04:22 PM
Big Ten has reportedly offered UNC.


From a common sense perspective, I still think the first shoe to drop, if any, won't happen until after the MD/ACC suit plays out. MD made some really compelling arguments with respect to the exit fee and the ACC bylaws that are, on their face, a bit damning. But I don't have all of the facts, and that was a MD-leaning pleading, obviously. Will be interested to see how the ACC responds (and they may have already).



Why do you think Mary's argument is compelling? It failed to persuade the first trial court to deal with it. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bal-north-carolina-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-acc-suit-vs-maryland-20130218,0,5372429.story) In fact, Mary's argument seems circular and hollow: "We joined the league in 1953, accepted its benefits for about 60 years and had the opportunity to vote on its exit rules, but now we think it was anticompetitive from the outset so we should be permitted to leave in breach of those rules and without complying with them."

It's not compelling to me; instead, it's a bit puerile.

A-Tex Devil
02-20-2013, 04:26 PM
This is an awful lot of furor over something that's purely internet hokum.

Not happening.

I tend to agree, but I think it's linked this time, and opened for renewed discussion, because Sporting News thought enough of it to report it, probably based on Ermann's reports. Maryland based or not, Ermann has been down right conservative (relatively), and *not* a rumor monger like so many of the others out there.

Carolina can be unequivocal in its response, and with the Sporting News reporting it, like it or not, they are going to have to say something.

wilson
02-20-2013, 04:47 PM
For what it's worth, the Sporting News piece isn't actually adding a voice to the chorus claiming that this is really happening; rather, it's just repeating the aforementioned dude's tweet as a reportable "fact."
A quick Google search reveals rather few sources reporting this story (a couple dozen), and none of them quote any source other than dude's tweet.
Meanwhile, the two most reputable sources weighing in at this point are USA Today, whose Dan Wolken spoke with unc officials at their game in Atlanta last night and believes this discussion to be "far-fetched," (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21736743/conference-realignment-can-acc-take-schools-for-their-word) and CBS Sports, where football columnist Jeremy Fowler astutely points out that the #1 reason by far for the Twerps' conference move was financial straits, straits so bad that they were cutting sports:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21736743/conference-realignment-can-acc-take-schools-for-their-word
Fowler further points out that unc is and always has been the ACC's golden child (whether or not we Blue Devils want to admit it), and that in the Big 1?, they'd be just another seat at the table. They'd be hard-pressed to give up that favored status, especially when their athletic department is by all accounts quite healthy financially. I purposely leave out any mention of "tradition," because in the end, I believe that amounts to a hill of beans in this whole matter.
I'm not saying I'm not a little nervous here. I'm firmly in the camp who believes Duke's future athletic (read: basketball) relevance is in some serious trouble if the ACC experiences a true (even partial) disintegration. But that said, I don't think this story has legs at this point by any means.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-20-2013, 04:52 PM
Where have all the journalists gone? They're not in the media anymore, it seems.

Agreed. This is an awful lot of commotion for something that traces back to a tweet from a MD source 30 hours ago with no confirmation.

ForkFondler
02-20-2013, 05:13 PM
This is an awful lot of furor over something that's purely internet hokum.

Not happening.

Thank you. Why do people keep falling for this stuff.

A-Tex Devil
02-20-2013, 05:16 PM
Why do you think Mary's argument is compelling? It failed to persuade the first trial court to deal with it. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bal-north-carolina-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-acc-suit-vs-maryland-20130218,0,5372429.story) In fact, Mary's argument seems circular and hollow: "We joined the league in 1953, accepted its benefits for about 60 years and had the opportunity to vote on its exit rules, but now we think it was anticompetitive from the outset so we should be permitted to leave in breach of those rules and without complying with them."

It's not compelling to me; instead, it's a bit puerile.

I need to go back and look (I haven't read it since it first came out), but some of Maryland's stronger arguments were more technical. I thought I remember that Maryland's claim was that the ACC didn't follow the letter of its bylaws in enacting the exit fee, and that under its charter or bylaws, the exit fee couldn't be implemented for at least a year. Reading the pleading on its own, that struck me as something that should be pretty black and white.

I think Maryland's most effective bullet in at least forcing a settlement is going to be that the $50MM is a penalty, and not reflective of the actual damages the ACC has incurred. The ACC is going to have to open up its books to prove that $50MM is reasonable, and that may be problematic if the other schools don't like what they see. This is magnified by the fact (from an equity standpoint) that Maryland voted against the exit fee. I don't know what NC law says about liquidated damages if they are deemed to be penalties. Some jurisdictions, under some conditions, may waive the entire liquidated damages if they are too punitive. I kind of doubt that's the case here, since UMd is a sophisticated party (insert joke here), but if it's a possibility, that should be on ACC's radar as well for settlement purposes. But this argument is what I think will force a settlement -- but whether it's $10MM or $35MM is the question.

uh_no
02-20-2013, 05:47 PM
I need to go back and look (I haven't read it since it first came out), but some of Maryland's stronger arguments were more technical. I thought I remember that Maryland's claim was that the ACC didn't follow the letter of its bylaws in enacting the exit fee, and that under its charter or bylaws, the exit fee couldn't be implemented for at least a year. Reading the pleading on its own, that struck me as something that should be pretty black and white.

I think Maryland's most effective bullet in at least forcing a settlement is going to be that the $50MM is a penalty, and not reflective of the actual damages the ACC has incurred. The ACC is going to have to open up its books to prove that $50MM is reasonable, and that may be problematic if the other schools don't like what they see. This is magnified by the fact (from an equity standpoint) that Maryland voted against the exit fee. I don't know what NC law says about liquidated damages if they are deemed to be penalties. Some jurisdictions, under some conditions, may waive the entire liquidated damages if they are too punitive. I kind of doubt that's the case here, since UMd is a sophisticated party (insert joke here), but if it's a possibility, that should be on ACC's radar as well for settlement purposes. But this argument is what I think will force a settlement -- but whether it's $10MM or $35MM is the question.

The ACC doesn't have to prove anything. The onus is on Maryland to prove that they should not be subject to the fee. Further, whether it is reasonable seems immaterial considering it was voted on by the members....

I'm not a contract law expert, but it would seem that so long as the fee was imposed in accordance to the rules stipulated in the bylaws, it doesn't matter how "unreasonable" it is. The members of the group could make it 100 billion dollars if they wanted.

Duvall
02-20-2013, 06:10 PM
Big Ten has reportedly offered UNC.

I've followed the rumor mill in the last few months since the Maryland move, but nothing ever made a major publication, so in my view, wasn't worth mentioning here. A lot of it was pretty humorous. It's interesting that the Sporting News decided to pick this up now, though, and I think it's because Jeff Ermann was out in front of the MD --> Big Ten thing last fall.

This is one of 3 things:

1. True.
2. Absolute horse-hockey -- and there is a ton of merit to that since the fashion forward approach to realignment is not asking someone to dance until you know they'll say yes.

To be fair, this is pretty much the way the Big Ten has handled its pursuit of Notre Dame for the last twenty or so years.

Duvall
02-20-2013, 07:04 PM
Unless you are of the camp that thinks Duke can stay relevant in basketball and let its other sports move to something like the Southern Conference, or remain in a neutered, locked out, ACC (and I'm not sure that is a "wrong" position, per se, although not mine), what Carolina does or does not do is of the utmost importance to Duke's athletic department remaining in whatever circle has access to the football playoffs, and the money that goes with it.

I think and hope that, despite the rivalry between the sidelines, there is some loyalty between Duke and UNC when it comes to where the schools want to be when everything shakes out. Obviously, the first choice is a strong, stable ACC. I still believe that is the most likely outcome. But if the Big Ten swoops in again and snags two more teams, things will need to be re-evaluated.

Re-evaluate what? One nice thing about not having any options is that it saves you from having to make any tough decisions.

dukeofcalabash
02-20-2013, 07:23 PM
Hmmmm, I guess Duke's dominance in basketball has hurt more than Maryland's feelings in the last few years. Both Coach Williams' have had enough apparantly.

fgb
02-20-2013, 07:30 PM
It's all about the television markets - losing DC and Atlanta would clobber the ACC

they don't get espn in dc?

OldPhiKap
02-20-2013, 07:31 PM
A UGa friend of mine called a month ago, having heard that Duke and UNC were headed to the SEC.

I have trouble thinking that any Triangle team would abandon the ACC. Hope I am right.

A-Tex Devil
02-20-2013, 07:51 PM
The ACC doesn't have to prove anything. The onus is on Maryland to prove that they should not be subject to the fee. Further, whether it is reasonable seems immaterial considering it was voted on by the members....

I'm not a contract law expert, but it would seem that so long as the fee was imposed in accordance to the rules stipulated in the bylaws, it doesn't matter how "unreasonable" it is. The members of the group could make it 100 billion dollars if they wanted.

Well Maryland would subpoena the ACC books to try to prove their case that it is a penalty - and Maryland is certainly going to paint a less rosy picture in their interpretation. And I don't necessarily think that a vote among the members or bylaws are always dispositive. Contract law (and bylaws are essentially a contract among the members) is littered with cases where sophisticated parties agreed to liquidated damages then were later able to get out of them because they were too punitive. This particular case may one where the facts do not support the liquidated damages as being punitive, but it's not a ridiculous argument by Maryland.

I guess the point is that this isn't as open and shut as the ACC perceives it to be. Not a single school that wasn't on the hook for some other issue (like a notice period) paid anywhere close to its exit fees.

Class of '94
02-20-2013, 08:31 PM
But all of this is old news. David Glenn reported on his radio show that the BIG voted and approved several ACC schools in advance (months ago); and that UNC and UVA were two of them. It's no secret that the BIG covets both these schools; and they they both have open invitations such that if they ever need a place to land in the future, they would be welcomed into the BIG.

And despite the reasons many posters have listed, I'm still surprised the Sporting News would wait until now to print this. As David Glenn mentioned, the ACC is still the first choice and preference for all its members (assuming no future changes or defections).

And I'm still surprised that the BIG wouldn't also be interested in Duke (despite it being a small private school) since the BIG does have Northwestern and Duke's sports programs across the board are competitive (and up and coming in football). From a rivalry and tv viewing perspective, having both Duke and Carolina would bring eyeballs nationally to the BIG network.

Personally, I think Duke and Carolina (and maybe even State) are a packaged deal and just do not see these schools breaking away from one another to go in separate directions. I think the rumors that SEC wants both Duke and Carolina holds some water; and if ever came down to money, the SEC would be just a viable a conference for both schools as the BIG, especially if the SEC would bring in both schools.

All this being said, I grew up in NC and I live and breathe the ACC. I sincerely hope the ACC can fend off the BIG and keep all of its existing members. And I'm encouraged that it appears the ACC is looking at creative ways to increase revenue by looking at potentially starting up its own cable network, looking at partnerships with the Big 12 and the PAC 12; and aligning themselves with additional distribution partners for the ACCDN. If the ACC can continue to build and improve on the football field, I think we're going to be fine.

Atlanta Duke
02-20-2013, 08:31 PM
they don't get espn in dc?

Hard to sell your programming if you lose the state schools proximate to DC - Big Ten's strategy is to get hegemony in major TV markets outside its traditional base - of course getting GA Tech might not do them much good in the Atlanta market since this is SEC country and UGA rules in Atlanta

Class of '94
02-20-2013, 08:43 PM
Hard to sell your programming if you lose the state schools proximate to DC - Big Ten's strategy is to get hegemony in major TV markets outside its traditional base - of course getting GA Tech might not do them much good in the Atlanta market since this is SEC country and UGA rules in Atlanta

One last question to anyone who may have an idea......Why doesn't the ACC discontinue the ACC/Big 10 challenge if the BIG continues to try to undermine the ACC by recruiting schools under the table? While I mentioned that the open invitations were reported months ago, I do believe the BIG has continued under the table (just like they did with MD) to persuade schools like GT, UNC and UVA to leave the ACC for the BIG. I think the saving grace is that these schools aren't currently in the dire financial straits that schools like Nebraska, Rutgers and MD were.

I'm also surprised that Delaney, a UNC grad and I believe a former member of the basketball team, would forego history and tradition that UNC has built with the ACC in favor of trying to advance the BIG agenda. I would've thought he more than any other person in the BIG would appreciate the history and tradition of the ACC and what schools like UNC, GT and UVA mean to it.

Lennies
02-21-2013, 09:09 AM
The Terps are headed to the Big Ten either way, so I think they'll fight it for 4-5 years.

The ACC would be smart to get a court order escrowing $50M of Maryland's funds.

A-Tex Devil
02-21-2013, 11:03 AM
The ACC would be smart to get a court order escrowing $50M of Maryland's funds.

The problem is that (1) Maryland probably doesn't have the money and (2) I don't know that any court has the jurisdiction to escrow the funds of a state institution.

I think what the ACC is doing now is smart -- simply keeping MD's share of the revenues as they come in. That won't get them there completely, but it will put a ton of pressure on an already hurting MD athletic department to work something out.

johnb
02-21-2013, 11:36 AM
One last question to anyone who may have an idea......Why doesn't the ACC discontinue the ACC/Big 10 challenge if the BIG continues to try to undermine the ACC by recruiting schools under the table? While I mentioned that the open invitations were reported months ago, I do believe the BIG has continued under the table (just like they did with MD) to persuade schools like GT, UNC and UVA to leave the ACC for the BIG. ...t.

I don't bear the midwesterners any particular ill will (we may end up joining them, though I'd doubt it). For one thing, we've been poaching teams from various conferences for years without giving it much thought (I can't even recall off the top of my head what conference VaTech had been in), including Notre Dame (whose conference I do recall). For another, change is inevitable. Do we view the future demographics of the country to be sliding towards corn country/Detroit or to the southeast/east coast/Florida. Hmm... Yes, they can pack in 100,000 people to watch a Nebraska game, but that clears out a big chunk of the humans within 100 miles. In the long run, joining the Big 10 is a little like getting a great deal in an investment in horse buggies in 1910.

As for the strength of the NC legislature, well, if Texans couldn't prevent A&M from joining the SEC, I doubt anybody could really force UNC to bring along NC State.

duke79
02-21-2013, 11:51 AM
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-02-20/big-ten-expansion-north-carolina-virginia-georgia-tech-acc

Article says UNC has been offered and lists UVA as likely to join. Original source is 247Sports.com which broke the MD story.

If the ACC does ever disintegrate (and I hope it does not), then I think Duke should just throw in the towel and join the Ivy League. Let's face reality. Do we really want to associate with the schools in Big 10 or the SEC? They are NOT Duke's natural peer institutions. Or do we want to associate with Harvard, Yale and Princeton? Athletically, we could kick butt in the Ivy League (at least for a few years). Hell, even our football team would an Ivy League powerhouse. (Are we ever really going to be able to compete in football with Alabama, Tennessee, Notre Dame, USC, etc.? I love Coach Cutcliffe but the reality is Duke will never again be a football powerhouse). Yea, we'd have to give up athletic scholarships but that would save the institution millions every year. Undoubtedly, applications to the university would increase by at least 5,000 per year, if Duke were a member of the Ivy League. I predict that annual giving would increase substantially as well. I mean, at least 50% of the students who have attended Duke over the last 40 years actually wanted to attend an Ivy League school, so now they could tell everyone: "yea, I went to an Ivy League school". Just think of what it would do for the "resume enhancement" of all Duke grads? Many of the professors at Duke attended an Ivy League school as either undergrads or grad students, so this would be a natural fit. President Brodhead has three degrees from Yale and taught there for 30 years. We would have to build a hockey rink and field a hockey team, but this would be a good fit with many of the northern students at Duke. We'd have to add some squash teams and a men's crew team. But, again, no big deal. Coach K could retire, be given some special title and help out with the development office at Duke. We could hire Tommy Amaker to be the new head baskerball coach. He already knows the Ivy League set up and would be a natural to lead the Duke basketball team in its new league. The Ivy League would actually have a basketball team that might win the big prize. All the east coast media (NY Times, the Washington Post, the major networks, etc) would love it. The other Ivy League teams would enjoy travelling to warmer climes to play their respective sports against Duke. I think this strategy makes a lot sense !!

Kedsy
02-21-2013, 12:03 PM
(I can't even recall off the top of my head what conference VaTech had been in)

Virginia Tech was in the Big East when the ACC "poached" them. As was Miami and BC and Syracuse and Pitt and Notre Dame and Louisville. So, really, the ACC has only raided one conference, at least since Florida State joined back in 1991.


If the ACC does ever disintegrate (and I hope it does not), then I think Duke should just throw in the towel and join the Ivy League.

What makes you think the Ivy League would be interested?


Let's face reality.

I assume your post was tongue-in-cheek, but just in case it wasn't I'd say the term "reality" should not be anywhere near the same paragraph as your suggestion.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2013, 12:44 PM
What makes you think the Ivy League would be interested?

I have it on good authority that Duke has a standing invitation from the Ivy League. At any time, we could basically write and sign our own proposal. I heard on The Twitter that the IL wants to expand with Duke, Stanford, and Oxford.

Coach K is currently reading a counterproposal from the ACC that would retract back to 8 teams of K's choosing and round-robin home and home schedule.

cspan37421
02-21-2013, 01:17 PM
I have it on good authority that Duke has a standing invitation from the Ivy League. At any time, we could basically write and sign our own proposal. I heard on The Twitter that the IL wants to expand with Duke, Stanford, and Oxford.

Coach K is currently reading a counterproposal from the ACC that would retract back to 8 teams of K's choosing and round-robin home and home schedule.

Really? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not sure which of the above is the most extraordinary:

We can write and sign our own proposal?
Coach K can make up his own new ACC?
Oxford - as in the UK? Think of travel costs. Or Miami of Oxford, OH? Or Oxford College of Emory?

They're all really hard to believe, especially the first two which imply that our new conference mates would all bow down to us.

freshmanjs
02-21-2013, 01:20 PM
Really? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not sure which of the above is the most extraordinary:

We can write and sign our own proposal?
Coach K can make up his own new ACC?
Oxford - as in the UK? Think of travel costs. Or Miami of Oxford, OH? Or Oxford College of Emory?

They're all really hard to believe, especially the first two which imply that our new conference mates would all bow down to us.

it was a joke.

vick
02-21-2013, 01:21 PM
Really? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not sure which of the above is the most extraordinary:

We can write and sign our own proposal?
Coach K can make up his own new ACC?
Oxford - as in the UK? Think of travel costs. Or Miami of Oxford, OH? Or Oxford College of Emory?

They're all really hard to believe, especially the first two which imply that our new conference mates would all bow down to us.

I interpreted it as a joke...I kinda like the idea of a 'home and home' schedule for us though.

duke79
02-21-2013, 01:25 PM
Virginia Tech was in the Big East when the ACC "poached" them. As was Miami and BC and Syracuse and Pitt and Notre Dame and Louisville. So, really, the ACC has only raided one conference, at least since Florida State joined back in 1991.



What makes you think the Ivy League would be interested?



I assume your post was tongue-in-cheek, but just in case it wasn't I'd say the term "reality" should not be anywhere near the same paragraph as your suggestion.

Yea, obviously (I hope) my post was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although I'm not sure it would really be a bad plan of action if the ACC does break up. I have NO clue whether or not the Ivy League would have any interest in adding Duke or other schools to the league (never heard any rumors to that effect), but Duke, it seems to me, would be the most logical candidate, if they ever considered it. The sandstone stairs around campus are sufficiently worn down and the ivy has grown up enough on some of the buildings and our US New and World Report rankings are high enough that I don't think Duke would be an embaressment to the Ivy League.

By "reality" I assume you mean the sentence about Duke football. I hate to be a pessimist and I'd love to see Duke be able to compete at the highest levels of BCS football, a la Stanford and Notre Dame, but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. I hope I am wrong about this.

throatybeard
02-21-2013, 01:38 PM
I have it on good authority that Duke has a standing invitation from the Ivy League. At any time, we could basically write and sign our own proposal. I heard on The Twitter that the IL wants to expand with Duke, Stanford, and Oxford.

Coach K is currently reading a counterproposal from the ACC that would retract back to 8 teams of K's choosing and round-robin home and home schedule.

I finally got Reese Witherspoon to go out with me, and my wife is cool with it.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-21-2013, 01:41 PM
I interpreted it as a joke...I kinda like the idea of a 'home and home' schedule for us though.

/kicks the tires

Wow, it's a tough crowd.

:)

Go Duke!

wilson
02-21-2013, 01:45 PM
If the ACC does ever disintegrate (and I hope it does not), then I think Duke should just throw in the towel and join the Ivy League. Let's face reality. Do we really want to associate with the schools in Big 10 or the SEC? They are NOT Duke's natural peer institutions. Or do we want to associate with Harvard, Yale and Princeton? Athletically, we could kick butt in the Ivy League (at least for a few years). Hell, even our football team would an Ivy League powerhouse. (Are we ever really going to be able to compete in football with Alabama, Tennessee, Notre Dame, USC, etc.? I love Coach Cutcliffe but the reality is Duke will never again be a football powerhouse). Yea, we'd have to give up athletic scholarships but that would save the institution millions every year. Undoubtedly, applications to the university would increase by at least 5,000 per year, if Duke were a member of the Ivy League. I predict that annual giving would increase substantially as well. I mean, at least 50% of the students who have attended Duke over the last 40 years actually wanted to attend an Ivy League school, so now they could tell everyone: "yea, I went to an Ivy League school". Just think of what it would do for the "resume enhancement" of all Duke grads? Many of the professors at Duke attended an Ivy League school as either undergrads or grad students, so this would be a natural fit. President Brodhead has three degrees from Yale and taught there for 30 years. We would have to build a hockey rink and field a hockey team, but this would be a good fit with many of the northern students at Duke. We'd have to add some squash teams and a men's crew team. But, again, no big deal. Coach K could retire, be given some special title and help out with the development office at Duke. We could hire Tommy Amaker to be the new head baskerball coach. He already knows the Ivy League set up and would be a natural to lead the Duke basketball team in its new league. The Ivy League would actually have a basketball team that might win the big prize. All the east coast media (NY Times, the Washington Post, the major networks, etc) would love it. The other Ivy League teams would enjoy travelling to warmer climes to play their respective sports against Duke. I think this strategy makes a lot sense !!No offense, but I hate this idea.
Let's face it, the reason we're all on this site in the first place is the transcendent success of our basketball program during the last ~3 decades. That pretty much ends with any move to the Ivy League. As you've pointed out, such a move would entail scholarship reductions and a general de-emphasizing of athletics. With regard to the overall mission of the university, that would probably be a good thing in the aggregate. However, with regard to each of our connections with Duke University, it would almost undoubtedly be a bad thing. I find it highly unlikely that an Ivy League Duke would consistently, realistically compete for national championships in light of the above-referenced shifts in resources and priorities. If you're happy with crushing our conference year in and year out, followed by consistent tournament bids and the occasional Sweet Sixteen but no realistic shot at a championship, then let's go for it and go Ivy. However, if you prefer a consistently nationally relevant basketball program, I submit that such a move would be disastrous (again, I mean disastrous for Duke basketball, not for Duke University overall).

TruBlu
02-21-2013, 01:56 PM
I finally got Reese Witherspoon to go out with me, and my wife is cool with it.

Yep, my wife is cool with it, too! (Her going out with you, that is.)

hurleyfor3
02-21-2013, 02:12 PM
Not sure what was meant as sarcasm/humor and what wasn't, but the point of the Ivy League is to keep schools out, not let schools in. It's like the bar or CFA exams.

If the acc dies and the other major conferences shun us (unlikely, because at some point the sec would love to boost its fraternal gpa), I think we have an out with the League of Altar-Boy Molestors or whatever they're gonna call it.

Duvall
02-21-2013, 02:13 PM
Not sure what was meant as sarcasm/humor and what wasn't, but the point of the Ivy League is to keep schools out, not let schools in. It's like the bar or CFA exams.

If the acc dies and the other major conferences shun us (unlikely, because at some point the sec would love to boost its fraternal gpa), I think we have an out with the League of Altar-Boy Molestors or whatever they're gonna call it.

You mean the conference specifically founded so that its members wouldn't have to deal with schools that play FBS football? I think Duke would have a better chance with the Ancient Eight.

ForkFondler
02-21-2013, 02:25 PM
Chicago has seven Big Ten Championships in football. Indiana has one, so with an expansion to 16 teams, current projections indicate that it will take the Hoosiers another 900 years to catch the Maroons.

Just food for thought.

MCFinARL
02-21-2013, 02:50 PM
Yea, obviously (I hope) my post was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although I'm not sure it would really be a bad plan of action if the ACC does break up. I have NO clue whether or not the Ivy League would have any interest in adding Duke or other schools to the league (never heard any rumors to that effect), but Duke, it seems to me, would be the most logical candidate, if they ever considered it. The sandstone stairs around campus are sufficiently worn down and the ivy has grown up enough on some of the buildings and our US New and World Report rankings are high enough that I don't think Duke would be an embaressment to the Ivy League.

By "reality" I assume you mean the sentence about Duke football. I hate to be a pessimist and I'd love to see Duke be able to compete at the highest levels of BCS football, a la Stanford and Notre Dame, but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. I hope I am wrong about this.

Recognizing that I am responding seriously to a post you have already said was not entirely serious, I think there is at least one reason no one else has mentioned that the Ivy League would not be excited about adding Duke. They keep a very tight rein on their travel expenses and play pretty much all games on weekends, back to back, instead of traveling during the week and possibly missing classes. Duke would be a geographic outlier that would likely be paired with Penn or Columbia, the closest other teams, for weekend travel. Imagine regularly playing games 24-36 hours apart with travel in between in Durham and Philadelphia--that could get old in a hurry (and I don't think most of them have charter planes, either).

ForkFondler
02-21-2013, 03:00 PM
Recognizing that I am responding seriously to a post you have already said was not entirely serious, I think there is at least one reason no one else has mentioned that the Ivy League would not be excited about adding Duke. They keep a very tight rein on their travel expenses and play pretty much all games on weekends, back to back, instead of traveling during the week and possibly missing classes. Duke would be a geographic outlier that would likely be paired with Penn or Columbia, the closest other teams, for weekend travel. Imagine regularly playing games 24-36 hours apart with travel in between in Durham and Philadelphia--that could get old in a hurry (and I don't think most of them have charter planes, either).

You're just not thinking outside the box. The Ivy league could expand with a new southern division comprised of Villanova, Georgetown, Richmond, UVa, UNC, Duke, Wake, and the Davidson/Furman hybrid.

MCFinARL
02-21-2013, 03:13 PM
You're just not thinking outside the box. The Ivy league could expand with a new southern division comprised of Villanova, Georgetown, Richmond, UVa, UNC, Duke, Wake, and the Davidson/Furman hybrid.

Interesting--Pretty sure that idea isn't in the same universe as the box! ;)

hurleyfor3
02-21-2013, 03:16 PM
Pretty sure the Ivies are very, very happy with the hermetically-sealed box they're in.

wsb3
02-21-2013, 03:18 PM
it was a joke.


As Shelden from the Big Bang Theory might say, "Sarcasm?" :D

ForkFondler
02-21-2013, 03:24 PM
Interesting--Pretty sure that idea isn't in the same universe as the box! ;)

Well, if UVa and UNC abandon their quest to be public Ivies, then the IL could move Penn and Princeton into the Southern division, and then add MacMaster and McGill to tap into the Canadian market. Admittedly, should the league choose to emphasize the product on the field, Laval might be a better choice than McGill.

duke79
02-21-2013, 04:32 PM
Yea, I hope no one takes my suggestion that Duke join the Ivy League, if the ACC breaks up, TOO seriously. I think we all know that Duke is not going to be part of the IL. I thought of this, however, by the memory of when Duke played Harvard in basketball in Cambridge in the late 80's. I was at the game in Harvard's drafty "cage" where they played basketball then (more like a high school gym, frankly) and, at halftime, the Harvard students who were running the PA system came up with their top 10 reasons, a la David Letterman, why Duke should be a member of the Ivy League. I can't remember all the reasons but one was about the better weather in Durham than Cambridge and then they got down to the number one reason Duke should be invited to be a member of the Ivy League - that UPenn would NO longer have to be the "safety" Ivy for the students who got rejected by all the other Ivies. As I remember, all of the Duke supporters in the crowd (and there were more Duke supporters than Harvard fans) started to boo. It was quite funny at the time.

wilson
02-21-2013, 04:38 PM
...UPenn would NO longer have to be the "safety" Ivy for the students who got rejected by all the other Ivies...This is ironic, given that Duke consistently comes in ahead of half the Ivy League in the US News rankings (and yes, I realize that those rankings are deeply flawed, but still...).

dukeofcalabash
02-21-2013, 05:26 PM
No offense, but I hate this idea.
Let's face it, the reason we're all on this site in the first place is the transcendent success of our basketball program during the last ~3 decades. That pretty much ends with any move to the Ivy League. As you've pointed out, such a move would entail scholarship reductions and a general de-emphasizing of athletics. With regard to the overall mission of the university, that would probably be a good thing in the aggregate. However, with regard to each of our connections with Duke University, it would almost undoubtedly be a bad thing. I find it highly unlikely that an Ivy League Duke would consistently, realistically compete for national championships in light of the above-referenced shifts in resources and priorities. If you're happy with crushing our conference year in and year out, followed by consistent tournament bids and the occasional Sweet Sixteen but no realistic shot at a championship, then let's go for it and go Ivy. However, if you prefer a consistently nationally relevant basketball program, I submit that such a move would be disastrous (again, I mean disastrous for Duke basketball, not for Duke University overall).

Besides that, I always thought Duke tried to become an Ivy League school decades ago, at least in principle. Football hasn't been the same since.

lotusland
02-21-2013, 06:48 PM
I finally got Reese Witherspoon to go out with me, and my wife is cool with it.

When you see her please ask her to stop calling me all the time for Pete's sake

I think Duke should join the Human League-those guys rocked in the 80s!

throatybeard
02-21-2013, 06:50 PM
When you see her please ask her to stop calling me all the time for Pete's sake

I think Duke should join the Human League-those guys rocked in the 80s!

We could also have the Human Fund as our charity of choice. The Emily Krzyzewski Center is last year's news.

weezie
02-21-2013, 07:20 PM
I heard on The Twitter that the IL wants to expand with Duke, Stanford, and Oxford.


Sheesh, Oxford????! Those poncey twits are definitely not our rival.:cool:

gocanes0506
02-21-2013, 08:11 PM
Hmmmm, I guess Duke's dominance in basketball has hurt more than Maryland's feelings in the last few years. Both Coach Williams' have had enough apparantly.

I believe it comes down to all this expansion has caused middle of the road ACC teams to lose their prestige. Maryland, Clemson, GT, State, and UVA have gone down since Miami, BC, and VT were added. The Big East took over the as the best basketball conference. Now its the Big 10. Maryland has lost their "rivalry " with Duke. So they just jump ship so they can have no rivals and have more money for it.

throatybeard
02-21-2013, 08:47 PM
Sheesh, Oxford????! Those poncey twits are definitely not our rival.:cool:

I punted on the Thames in 1994.

wilson
02-21-2013, 09:01 PM
I punted on the Thames in 1994.Well, given how frequently Duke has punted in recent year, that might not be such a bad fit after all.
Wait, wrong sport...

ForkFondler
02-21-2013, 09:06 PM
Well, given how frequently Duke has punted in recent year, that might not be such a bad fit after all.
Wait, wrong sport...

Our punter is better than any punter they have, regardless.

throatybeard
02-21-2013, 09:08 PM
Well, given how frequently Duke has punted in recent year, that might not be such a bad fit after all.
Wait, wrong sport...

You know who's awesome? Shane Lechler.

Orange&BlackSheep
02-22-2013, 05:07 AM
If the ACC does ever disintegrate (and I hope it does not), then I think Duke should just throw in the towel and join the Ivy League. Let's face reality. Do we really want to associate with the schools in Big 10 or the SEC? They are NOT Duke's natural peer institutions. Or do we want to associate with Harvard, Yale and Princeton? Athletically, we could kick butt in the Ivy League (at least for a few years). Hell, even our football team would an Ivy League powerhouse.

Presuming this was tongue in cheek ... There is no way on God's green Earth we would expand the Ivy League. I can't emphasize enough how relatively unimportant athletics is in the minds of Ivy Presidents.

O&B Sheep

cspan37421
02-22-2013, 05:34 AM
I must say, you got me.

Now, how about a little help getting this hook out of my mouth? :D

sagegrouse
02-22-2013, 06:13 AM
Judging by no new news since the initial post, can we conclude that there is nothing to the rumor that UNC and whoever will leave for the Big Ten?

sagegrouse

greybeard
02-22-2013, 07:18 AM
Why do you think Mary's argument is compelling? It failed to persuade the first trial court to deal with it. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bal-north-carolina-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-acc-suit-vs-maryland-20130218,0,5372429.story) In fact, Mary's argument seems circular and hollow: "We joined the league in 1953, accepted its benefits for about 60 years and had the opportunity to vote on its exit rules, but now we think it was anticompetitive from the outset so we should be permitted to leave in breach of those rules and without complying with them."

It's not compelling to me; instead, it's a bit puerile.

The opportunity to vote in dissent when the deck was stacked and the possible move by Md. to the Big Ten for big bucks had to have been known hardly makes for a compelling argument that the exit fee is not, as Maryland claims, "'an antitrust violation and an illegal penalty.'" Personally, I always thought that it was. This thing will settle and Maryland will pay a small fraction of what this new rule says it must. One, in the end, might well be able to characterize this rule as the "stop Maryland" rule, in which case I would not want to be representing the ACC in this matter. And, if institutions such as UNC, UVa, and perhaps even Duke are considering following the very same path as Maryland, and other less attractive ACC members are actively in the market for doing so also, how likely is it that da ACC will be able to continue to press for enforcement of the rule, as opposed to settling for receipt of a "processing fee" of say $5,000,000. I Think that this happens much sooner than 4 years, much.

duke79
02-22-2013, 09:46 AM
Presuming this was tongue in cheek ... There is no way on God's green Earth we would expand the Ivy League. I can't emphasize enough how relatively unimportant athletics is in the minds of Ivy Presidents.

O&B Sheep

Yes, my post suggesting that Duke try to join the Ivy League, if the ACC disintegrates, was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that athletics are "unimportant" in the Ivy League. My experience is that the IL takes athletics more seriously than most people think. Admittedly, they don't give out athletic scholarships but the reality is that many athletes at the IL schools receive very generous financial aid packages that are essentially "athletic scholarships" (It's nice to have huge endowments, as many of the schools do). The fact is that the IL has had many very competitive athletic teams in a variety of sports over the years (maybe not football) such as hockey, lacrosse, tennis, crew, soccer and others. In fact, the easiest way to be admitted to an IL school is to be a jock who has above-average SAT's and grades in HS. My wife and I have a close friend who is a professor at a Division III college (consistently ranked for the past 30 years in all of the rankings as the number 1 college in the US) who complains endlessly about how much athletics are emphasized at the school and how much money is allocated to the athletic department, so even at the Division III level athletics are an issue.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-22-2013, 09:51 AM
Judging by no new news since the initial post, can we conclude that there is nothing to the rumor that UNC and whoever will leave for the Big Ten?

sagegrouse

It was a rumor with no basis followed by a thread full of wild speculation and a few bad jokes (guilty).

Can we close this thread and move on?

Go Duke!

A-Tex Devil
02-22-2013, 11:40 AM
It was a rumor with no basis followed by a thread full of wild speculation and a few bad jokes (guilty).

Can we close this thread and move on?

Go Duke!

Why don't we let it die a natural death?

Realignment is fluid. Things have been about to happen, then didn't (Big XII six to the Pac 12). Unexpected events came from somewhat out of the blue (MD to Big Ten), while others simmered over time and went from unfathomable, to quite sensible (A&M to SEC). All of this started out as rumor and innuendo. Reporters that once had these stories by the short hairs with reliable sources have later allowed those same sources to make fools out of them (Chip Brown comes to mind). Others have made a name for themselves through connections with the schools they report on (Liucci at A&M, Ermann at UMd).

My gut tells me that the ACC will lose 2 teams sometime in the next 2 years, but the core that remains will continue to form a decent football conference that has the opportunity to get better, and a terrific basketball conference.

As to the discussion, one side is a bunch of rumor mongers writing realignment fan fiction, the other side is in denial with their head in the sand. Can't we have a discussion somewhere in between that? I don't necessarily like what is happening, but things are afoot in the back offices of the Big Ten, I do believe that. Delaney and the Big Ten presidents have made too many public statements SINCE acquiring Maryland and Rutgers for me to believe they aren't investigating further acquisitions. Whether it is still hypothetical at this point or actual battle plans, only they know.

So I guess the thought is that we can have a respectable discussion without "OMG, OMG!! Duke is in trouble!! Must go to SEC!!!" on one side and "Why are we even talking about this. Shut it down!" on the other. And if any posters abhor even having this discussion, the simple solution is to ignore it.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-22-2013, 11:49 AM
Why don't we let it die a natural death?

Realignment is fluid. Things have been about to happen, then didn't (Big XII six to the Pac 12). Unexpected events came from somewhat out of the blue (MD to Big Ten), while others simmered over time and went from unfathomable, to quite sensible (A&M to SEC). All of this started out as rumor and innuendo. Reporters that once had these stories by the short hairs with reliable sources have later allowed those same sources to make fools out of them (Chip Brown comes to mind). Others have made a name for themselves through connections with the schools they report on (Liucci at A&M, Ermann at UMd).

My gut tells me that the ACC will lose 2 teams sometime in the next 2 years, but the core that remains will continue to form a decent football conference that has the opportunity to get better, and a terrific basketball conference.

As to the discussion, one side is a bunch of rumor mongers writing realignment fan fiction, the other side is in denial with their head in the sand. Can't we have a discussion somewhere in between that? I don't necessarily like what is happening, but things are afoot in the back offices of the Big Ten, I do believe that. Delaney and the Big Ten presidents have made too many public statements SINCE acquiring Maryland and Rutgers for me to believe they aren't investigating further acquisitions. Whether it is still hypothetical at this point or actual battle plans, only they know.

So I guess the thought is that we can have a respectable discussion without "OMG, OMG!! Duke is in trouble!! Must go to SEC!!!" on one side and "Why are we even talking about this. Shut it down!" on the other. And if any posters abhor even having this discussion, the simple solution is to ignore it.

I have no problem with legitimate discussion on the issue. I just find a 5 page thread of panic resulting from one baseless tweet from a source that has spurned the ACC and has an axe to grind to be a bit absurd. There's other threads hiding away that discuss realignment as a whole which seem to be quite sufficient.

And yes, I realize I have contributed to this - at first in earnest and then in jokes. Perhaps that's why I want to shut it down. : /

At any rate, I feel this particular thread on this particular non-topic has run its course and the board would be better served if it disappeared, making room for legitimate discussion of Kelly's return, Mason's legacy, and the rest of the game schedule.

Regardless, I'm removing myself from this thread, so I can wash my hands of this mess.

Go Duke!

ForkFondler
02-22-2013, 01:30 PM
It was a rumor with no basis followed by a thread full of wild speculation and a few bad jokes (guilty).

Can we close this thread and move on?

Go Duke!

The GT scout board has had a series of expansion threads over the last several months that are largely directed towards lampooning ACC defection rumors. Having such a thread permanently in place nicely consolidates all idiotic expansion rumpors in one easily accessible or ignorable location. This thread is off to a great start in filling that role. But it needs to be renamed to give it a broader range -- I suggest "Big Kook Expansion".

OldPhiKap
02-22-2013, 01:35 PM
I know rumors are discouraged and all, but I have it on good authority that there are talks to create a basketball-specific medical center to rival that of Duke Med. It is being forged by the Heels and the pro team in Miami, geared specifically for emergency surgery.

The name? U.N.CHeatER.



(okay, long way to go on a rainy day)

matt1
02-22-2013, 03:13 PM
I know rumors are discouraged and all, but I have it on good authority that there are talks to create a basketball-specific medical center to rival that of Duke Med. It is being forged by the Heels and the pro team in Miami, geared specifically for emergency surgery.

The name? U.N.CHeatER.



(okay, long way to go on a rainy day)

As much as I hate UNC, I do not like to make fun of their medical center, as their experimental cancer drug saved my grandfathers life.

Steven43
02-22-2013, 03:16 PM
I have no problem with legitimate discussion on the issue. I just find a 5 page thread of panic resulting from one baseless tweet from a source that has spurned the ACC and has an axe to grind to be a bit absurd. There's other threads hiding away that discuss realignment as a whole which seem to be quite sufficient.

And yes, I realize I have contributed to this - at first in earnest and then in jokes. Perhaps that's why I want to shut it down. : /

At any rate, I feel this particular thread on this particular non-topic has run its course and the board would be better served if it disappeared, making room for legitimate discussion of Kelly's return, Mason's legacy, and the rest of the game schedule.

Regardless, I'm removing myself from this thread, so I can wash my hands of this mess.

Go Duke!

I think the idea that conference realignment is mostly over is wishful thinking on the part of those whose favored school is in a potential position of weakness in regard to realignment. I think UNC moving to the Big Ten or the SEC without Duke is more likely than not. Yes, UNC would feel the pain of not playing Duke consistently in all sports. However, I think UNC envisions a scenario whereby they would continue playing Duke in certain sports (basketball in particular) even if they were no longer in the same conference. That would make it more palatable for them to leave Duke behind. I know Coach K would never go for something like that, but it might not be up to him. The fact that we are so close to UNC geographically works against our staying with them in a move to the Big Ten or the SEC due to market overlap. I think it is clear that UNC is viewed as a much bigger athletic prize than is Duke, making very real the possibility of the two schools splitting up.

Jarhead
02-22-2013, 04:02 PM
I think the idea that conference realignment is mostly over is wishful thinking on the part of those whose favored school is in a potential position of weakness in regard to realignment. I think UNC moving to the Big Ten or the SEC without Duke is more likely than not. Yes, UNC would feel the pain of not playing Duke consistently in all sports. However, I think UNC envisions a scenario whereby they would continue playing Duke in certain sports (basketball in particular) even if they were no longer in the same conference. That would make it more palatable for them to leave Duke behind. I know Coach K would never go for something like that, but it might not be up to him. The fact that we are so close to UNC geographically works against our staying with them in a move to the Big Ten or the SEC due to market overlap. I think it is clear that UNC is viewed as a much bigger athletic prize than is Duke, making very real the possibility of the two schools splitting up.

Not going to happen. Bank on it.

Class of '94
02-22-2013, 04:06 PM
Why don't we let it die a natural death?

Realignment is fluid. Things have been about to happen, then didn't (Big XII six to the Pac 12). Unexpected events came from somewhat out of the blue (MD to Big Ten), while others simmered over time and went from unfathomable, to quite sensible (A&M to SEC). All of this started out as rumor and innuendo. Reporters that once had these stories by the short hairs with reliable sources have later allowed those same sources to make fools out of them (Chip Brown comes to mind). Others have made a name for themselves through connections with the schools they report on (Liucci at A&M, Ermann at UMd).

My gut tells me that the ACC will lose 2 teams sometime in the next 2 years, but the core that remains will continue to form a decent football conference that has the opportunity to get better, and a terrific basketball conference.

As to the discussion, one side is a bunch of rumor mongers writing realignment fan fiction, the other side is in denial with their head in the sand. Can't we have a discussion somewhere in between that? I don't necessarily like what is happening, but things are afoot in the back offices of the Big Ten, I do believe that. Delaney and the Big Ten presidents have made too many public statements SINCE acquiring Maryland and Rutgers for me to believe they aren't investigating further acquisitions. Whether it is still hypothetical at this point or actual battle plans, only they know.

So I guess the thought is that we can have a respectable discussion without "OMG, OMG!! Duke is in trouble!! Must go to SEC!!!" on one side and "Why are we even talking about this. Shut it down!" on the other. And if any posters abhor even having this discussion, the simple solution is to ignore it.

I'm curious......In your opinion, who are the 2 teams that will leave the ACC?

A-Tex Devil
02-22-2013, 04:16 PM
This is a fricking message board. If we are going to have 500 page threads on the daily proclivities of high-school aged Harrison Barnes and John Wall -- when they are still kids -- I hardly think a realignment thread is beyond the pale. I never really clicked on those threads because it didn't interest me, how about a little quid pro quo?

But here is why I think it's worth discussion, or at least observation:

- Michigan AD Dave Brandon -
"I don't think it's over. Large conferences are going to get larger; 16 seems to me to be a target for many conferences."

- Ohio St. Pres Gordon Gee said
"there has been ongoing discussion" about expansion and "believes there is movement towards three or four super conferences that are made up of 16-20 teams."

When a student member of the Athletic Council asked Gee what direction the Big Ten might take, Gee said "there are opportunities to move further south in the [E]ast and possibly a couple of Midwest universities."

- Brandon again -
"Based on the last three years I've been in this business, you’d be crazy not to think about [expansion, but it's hard to model anything because you don’t know what to model. The minute you get yourself convinced that you're going to go from 14 to 16, for all you know you’re going to 18, and a lot of people think the ultimate landing place is 20. Who knows? There’s too many variables out there to predict it."

- Ohio St's Gene Smith: "
When you get into the discussion of things like 10 [conference games], you say, 'Wow, if we had a couple more teams, it would be easier. That's a natural. But it's not something that motivates you to say, 'We've got to position this in case we have another team, or two more teams.' We don't do that. What I've liked about our league is, when we added Nebraska, we felt like we needed to settle and watch the landscape. We thought the East Coast was important, and we got two good pickups relative to that principal. So I think we deal with what we have now, sit, monitor the landscape, and if something emerges down the road, we're positioned to be able to absorb."

That's just a handful.... not to mention Delaney's constantly coded sound bytes.

Look -- if conference commissioners and university administrators are openly contemplating going beyond 14, I imagine there is a more detailed discussion happening behind closed doors. Again -- whether it's hypotheticals or actual battle plans is up for argument. But anyone that thinks the Big Ten and Delaney don't have a little mainfest destiny going on right now is missing the boat. That might not mean a thing for the ACC. I'm not advocating a chicken little approach here, but realignment is interesting to many, AND IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING. We aren't speculating about unicorns and dragons here, and I've enjoyed that most of the realignment threads on these boards haven't wandered into absurd realignment fan fiction. But those that want to come in and play Statler and Waldorf on not just this thread, but any thread, just reconsider posting.

Class of '94
02-22-2013, 04:21 PM
I think the idea that conference realignment is mostly over is wishful thinking on the part of those whose favored school is in a potential position of weakness in regard to realignment. I think UNC moving to the Big Ten or the SEC without Duke is more likely than not. Yes, UNC would feel the pain of not playing Duke consistently in all sports. However, I think UNC envisions a scenario whereby they would continue playing Duke in certain sports (basketball in particular) even if they were no longer in the same conference. That would make it more palatable for them to leave Duke behind. I know Coach K would never go for something like that, but it might not be up to him. The fact that we are so close to UNC geographically works against our staying with them in a move to the Big Ten or the SEC due to market overlap. I think it is clear that UNC is viewed as a much bigger athletic prize than is Duke, making very real the possibility of the two schools splitting up.

Why would UNC leave the ACC and separate themselves from their two biggest rivalries in Duke and State? I agree that UNC is a big athletic prize; but unlike MD, Rutgers and Nebraska, UNC's athletic program is not in a financial hardship. IMO, UNC wouldn't leave the ACC unless the ACC first became no longer viable; and for the ACC to no longer be viable, other key schools or UNC would have to leave first; and I don't see UNC being part of the schools to initiate the demise of the ACC. Secondly, if the rumors of the SEC wanting both UNC and Duke, I could see UNC playing hardball with the BIG to include Duke if the BIG wants UNC as bad as some reporters think. The funny thing about all of this is that it was just a year or so ago that there were rumors that the BIG coveted both Duke and UNC and would take both in a heartbeat. Now, it appears to have changed. I don't buy it. Stranger things can happen; but I don't see UNC splitting from the other triangle schools, especially when there might be other scenarios that would include all 3 staying together. The first and most favorable option is staying in the ACC and keeping it together as a viable conference despite the BIG best efforts through back channels to entice UNC and others to do otherwise.

A-Tex Devil
02-22-2013, 04:23 PM
I'm curious......In your opinion, who are the 2 teams that will leave the ACC?

I think it all depends on the final MD payout, but some combination of FSU, Ga Tech and Virginia. I think the Big Ten is greedy right now and can make a godfather offer to several schools in the ACC. I don't think UNC is one of those schools.

If MD ends up on the hook for most or all of the $50MM, then the ACC is in a much, much stronger position, and any exodus becomes more unlikely. But my gut tells me that the money in the Big Ten will be too much to pass up if they really want a couple of ACC teams and teh exit fee is weakened at all.

My fear about the exit fee is simply past history. Hopefully the ACC has better lawyers than the Big XII.

Class of '94
02-22-2013, 04:31 PM
I think it all depends on the final MD payout, but some combination of FSU, Ga Tech and Virginia. I think the Big Ten is greedy right now and can make a godfather offer to several schools in the ACC. I don't think UNC is one of those schools.

If MD ends up on the hook for most or all of the $50MM, then the ACC is in a much, much stronger position, and any exodus becomes more unlikely. But my gut tells me that the money in the Big Ten will be too much to pass up if they really want a couple of ACC teams and teh exit fee is weakened at all.

My fear about the exit fee is simply past history. Hopefully the ACC has better lawyers than the Big XII.

Got it....I get FSU and GT; but why do you think UVA would make the jump? It seems to me that they value the ACC more from a history and tradition perspective to leave for the BIG just for supposedly more money.

On a side-note, I think the key in keeping the ACC together will be for the ACC to find additional ways to create revenue streams that can grow (like the revenue stream from the BIG network) by being creative and out of the box thinkers.

A-Tex Devil
02-22-2013, 04:39 PM
Got it....I get FSU and GT; but why do you think UVA would make the jump? It seems to me that they value the ACC more from a history and tradition perspective to leave for the BIG just for supposedly more money.

On a side-note, I think the key in keeping the ACC together will be for the ACC to find additional ways to create revenue streams that can grow (like the revenue stream from the BIG network) by being creative and out of the box thinkers.

I think with UVa it's a little with giving Ermann some cred when he nailed the story last fall. There has been enough noise that UVa is listening to be disconcerting.

But here is the real thing, and it saddens me a bit. Other than Tobacco Road, how loyal is any school to the ACC at this point? It's not a completely rhetorical question. I don't know. Do UVa and Clemson fans/administrations/athletic depts have the same nostalgia as Duke, UNC, State and even Wake for the ACC? If Nebraska can leave its old Big 8 brethren, is it that far fetched that, for instance, UVa might do the same given the opportunity?

I would hope the answer is "No." I don't interact with many UVa grads on a day to day basis, although my dad went to law school there. My sense is that there is less connection to being part of the "ACC" for non Tobacco Road teams then there was even in the '90s. It's just the conference they happen to be in. It's Duke's and Carolina's conference in basketball, and a collection of really good 2-4 loss teams in football. But I also don't live in ACC land, so maybe I'm just disconnected.

ForkFondler
02-22-2013, 05:12 PM
I think UVa is less likely to go to the B1G than just about anybody. Virginia is a southern state. No way they let themselves be the southern outpost in a northern league. TJ would roll over in his grave.

As far as possible ACC casualties go, here's what I can see happening:

1. NCState and VT to the SEC. Good schools, good FB, two more southern states for the SEC. They could also take just one of these and snag one from the B12.
2. Syracuse or BC to the B1G. They need one more for an eastern pod, and I think they would rather have either one of these than UConn.

That's pretty much it. I don't see any other mutual interest.

What seems far, far more likely to me is a B12 dissection. They are the Austria-Hungary of this Diplomacy game.

Potential PAC12 targets: Texas, TT, Oklahoma, Kansas, maybe even Iowa St.
Potential SEC targets: Oklahoma, K State, maybe OK St
Potential B1G targets: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas

As for the ACC, I expect to add ND as a full member plus whomever they want to come with them.

oldnavy
02-22-2013, 05:13 PM
As much as I hate UNC, I do not like to make fun of their medical center, as their experimental cancer drug saved my grandfathers life.

Their trauma surgeons saved my mother in law and my brother's lives. I have nothing but the highest respect for the medical center and the professionals there.

matt1
02-22-2013, 06:19 PM
I think UVa is less likely to go to the B1G than just about anybody. Virginia is a southern state. No way they let themselves be the southern outpost in a northern league. TJ would roll over in his grave.

As far as possible ACC casualties go, here's what I can see happening:

1. NCState and VT to the SEC. Good schools, good FB, two more southern states for the SEC. They could also take just one of these and snag one from the B12.
2. Syracuse or BC to the B1G. They need one more for an eastern pod, and I think they would rather have either one of these than UConn.

That's pretty much it. I don't see any other mutual interest.

What seems far, far more likely to me is a B12 dissection. They are the Austria-Hungary of this Diplomacy game.

Potential PAC12 targets: Texas, TT, Oklahoma, Kansas, maybe even Iowa St.
Potential SEC targets: Oklahoma, K State, maybe OK St
Potential B1G targets: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas

As for the ACC, I expect to add ND as a full member plus whomever they want to come with them.

I think that Poland is a better example for the partitioning.

Anyway, if 16 is the magic number, whom should the ACC get? I would say Notre Dame (as a full member) and UConn.

dukeofcalabash
02-22-2013, 06:22 PM
Their trauma surgeons saved my mother in law and my brother's lives. I have nothing but the highest respect for the medical center and the professionals there.

Completely agree, you cannot compare in any shape, form, or fashion ANY of the basketball players with the medical training and services provided ------ at any university.

A-Tex Devil
02-22-2013, 06:24 PM
I think that Poland is a better example for the partitioning.

Anyway, if 16 is the magic number, whom should the ACC get? I would say Notre Dame (as a full member) and UConn.

I seriously will eat my Spiltlip Rayfield hat if Notre Dame joins the ACC in football in the next 3 years. And I love that hat. I just see zero incentive with the new playoff formula.

sporthenry
02-25-2013, 07:11 PM
http://timeswv.com/sports/x657736988/WVU-trying-travel-changes

You don't say. WVU is having travel issues with their move to the Big 12. I think this is great and who knows if this will cost WVU or other teams potential chances to get to the NCAAT, ultimately costing them money. One can only hope.

Mudge
02-25-2013, 08:15 PM
Unless you are of the camp that thinks Duke can stay relevant in basketball and let its other sports move to something like the Southern Conference, or remain in a neutered, locked out, ACC (and I'm not sure that is a "wrong" position, per se, although not mine), what Carolina does or does not do is of the utmost importance to Duke's athletic department remaining in whatever circle has access to the football playoffs, and the money that goes with it.

I think and hope that, despite the rivalry between the sidelines, there is some loyalty between Duke and UNC when it comes to where the schools want to be when everything shakes out. Obviously, the first choice is a strong, stable ACC. I still believe that is the most likely outcome. But if the Big Ten swoops in again and snags two more teams, things will need to be re-evaluated.

Duke doesn't need anybody's football money, anymore than the Ivies need "football money"-- football money is a rounding error on the annual Duke University operating budget (and a rounding error on the annual income/earnings from the Duke endowment), so it hardly should be a priority for Pres. Brodhead, and I wish people interested in Duke would stop endorsing this misconception.

kmspeaks
02-26-2013, 08:34 AM
Duke doesn't need anybody's football money, anymore than the Ivies need "football money"-- football money is a rounding error on the annual Duke University operating budget (and a rounding error on the annual income/earnings from the Duke endowment), so it hardly should be a priority for Pres. Brodhead, and I wish people interested in Duke would stop endorsing this misconception.

Duke (the university) doesn't need football money. Duke could drop all its athletic programs tomorrow and it would still be a place that attracts top students, produces highly successful graduates, and does all the other great things that Duke University does.

Duke (the athletic department) does need football money. Maybe not from a strict budgeting perspective, but they do need a football team that is attractive enough to make sure Duke isn't locked out of whatever form of "collegiate athletic association" emerges from this realignment mess. While many posters here are alumni who care about the mission of the university I don't think you'll find too many threads lamenting the new hire in the Biology Department or how professors are teaching too many classes and they'll be run down by the end of the semester;). Most of us are here because we want to talk about Duke Basketball and other Duke sports. Football is vitally important from that perspective.

TexHawk
02-26-2013, 09:55 AM
What seems far, far more likely to me is a B12 dissection. They are the Austria-Hungary of this Diplomacy game.


Why is this far, far more likely? You do understand that if Oklahoma bolts to the Pac12, the Pac12 can't broadcast their games for 13 years, right? (Technically, they CAN broadcast them, they just won't earn a dime in revenue).

All of the Big12 schools are in the same boat.

El_Diablo
02-26-2013, 11:09 AM
if Oklahoma bolts to the Pac12, the Pac12 can't broadcast their games for 13 years, right? (Technically, they CAN broadcast them, they just won't earn a dime in revenue).

This conclusion does not pass the smell test...can you explain the legal basis for it? As a general matter, the PAC 12 should be able to renegotiate its rights deals if it were to add schools to its conference. The PAC 12 was not a party to the Big Twelve contract, so I do not see how it could violate any provisions in that agreement by renegotiating its own media distribution agreements and passing on any additional revenues to its member institutions as it sees fit.

sporthenry
02-26-2013, 11:17 AM
Why is this far, far more likely? You do understand that if Oklahoma bolts to the Pac12, the Pac12 can't broadcast their games for 13 years, right? (Technically, they CAN broadcast them, they just won't earn a dime in revenue).

All of the Big12 schools are in the same boat.

The thing with this is, if UMD is allowed to breach its contract without paying its exit fee, why would the grant of rights hold up as well? I'm no lawyer but that seems to be the first domino in this whole game.

JasonEvans
02-26-2013, 11:27 AM
This conclusion does not pass the smell test...can you explain the legal basis for it? As a general matter, the PAC 12 should be able to renegotiate its rights deals if it were to add schools to its conference. The PAC 12 was not a party to the Big Twelve contract, so I do not see how it could violate any provisions in that agreement by renegotiating its own media distribution agreements and passing on any additional revenues to its member institutions as it sees fit.

Because Oklahoma and all the other current Big 12 members granted their first tier broadcast rights to the Big 12 for the next dozen or so years. That grant was irrevocable. It essentially makes the Big 12 members immune to poaching as they can join a new conference but cannot allow that new conference to broadcast their games for many years. It was a very smart move that ended the notion of Big 12 schools going to another conference.

Frankly, many people think the ACC should have done the same thing, but I think a number of members of the conference were opposed to that kind of relationship.

--Jason "I may be remembering the details of all this wrong... if so, I am sorry and I am sure someone smarter than me will correct this post" Evans

El_Diablo
02-26-2013, 11:37 AM
Because Oklahoma and all the other current Big 12 members granted their first tier broadcast rights to the Big 12 for the next dozen or so years. That grant was irrevocable. It essentially makes the Big 12 members immune to poaching as they can join a new conference but cannot allow that new conference to broadcast their games for many years. It was a very smart move that ended the notion of Big 12 schools going to another conference.

Frankly, many people think the ACC should have done the same thing, but I think a number of members of the conference were opposed to that kind of relationship.

--Jason "I may be remembering the details of all this wrong... if so, I am sorry and I am sure someone smarter than me will correct this post" Evans

This does not really jive with what TexHawk said (that the PAC 12 could still broadcast Oklahoma's games, just not pay Oklahoma for it). It seems that if there's a contract between the Big Twelve and its member schools, then such broadcasts would violate that contract.

Regardless, if that's the case (rights agreement between the Big Twelve schools and the Big Twelve), then Oklahoma (or any other Big Twelve school) could still go to another conference and grant its broadcast rights to the new conference. Doing so would breach the contract with the Big Twelve, and litigation would ensue, but in the end it would just come down to an award of damages or--much more likely--a settlement of some sorts.

cato
02-26-2013, 11:44 AM
But if that's the case, then Oklahoma (or any school) could still go to another conference and grant its broadcast rights to the new conference. Doing so would breach the contract with the Big Twelve, and litigation would ensue, but in the end it would just come down to an award of damages or--much more likely--a settlement of some sorts.

Well, presumably the governing documents have a provision saying the monetary damages are inadequate, and that the conference is entitled to injuctive relief (i.e., they can get a court to issue an order preventing other rights holders from broadcasting the content). Of course, injunctive relief is an equitable remedy, so the conference would have to show, among other things, that monetary damages are inadequate, etc., which seems like a stretch to me, but you know the conference would make the argument. And, who knows? Maybe they would win -- or at least negotiate a larger settlement.

One thing we do know, however, is that this expansion stuff is a bonanza for some lawyers out there.

cato
02-26-2013, 11:47 AM
This does not really jive with what TexHawk said (that the PAC 12 could still broadcast Oklahoma's games, just not pay Oklahoma for it). It seems that if there's a contract between the Big Twelve and its member schools, then such broadcasts would violate that contract.

Replying to your edit, that would be a good way to structure the contract: instead of relying on injuctive relief, which would be up to the discretion of the court, just allow the schools to leave the conference, but require them to pay damages to the conference in the amount of any revenue they receive from the new conference. Seems like a reasonable measure of damages, and I don't see how it could be cast as an unenforceable penalty. I like it.

El_Diablo
02-26-2013, 11:58 AM
Well, presumably the governing documents have a provision saying the monetary damages are inadequate, and that the conference is entitled to injuctive relief (i.e., they can get a court to issue an order preventing other rights holders from broadcasting the content). Of course, injunctive relief is an equitable remedy, so the conference would have to show, among other things, that monetary damages are inadequate, etc., which seems like a stretch to me, but you know the conference would make the argument. And, who knows? Maybe they would win -- or at least negotiate a larger settlement.

One thing we do know, however, is that this expansion stuff is a bonanza for some lawyers out there.

Exactly. The conference could always argue for specific performance...but it's a pretty tough remedy to sell, and I would think the chances of succeeding would be pretty slim on something like this (where the conference's incoming money from the Fox/ESPN deal either stays the same or goes down by a precise, unambiguous amount).

ForkFondler
02-26-2013, 02:40 PM
Why is this far, far more likely? You do understand that if Oklahoma bolts to the Pac12, the Pac12 can't broadcast their games for 13 years, right? (Technically, they CAN broadcast them, they just won't earn a dime in revenue).

All of the Big12 schools are in the same boat.

The GOR might prevent them from leaving one at a time, but it won't stop them from all leaving at once. Furthermore, if seven of the 10 schools got a better offer, the settlement with the other three would not be that expensive.

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 03:23 PM
Simply put:

The Grant of Rights does not prevent a school from leaving the conference. But the former conference owns all the rights granted to that conference, so the new conference wouldn't have any rights to televise new team's home games. Most of these contracts are on a year to year basis. It's your basic poison pill. You can poach our teams, but you won't get the value of adding them to your TV contract.

The Exit Fee is liquidated damages. It also doesn't prevent a school from leaving, but it also doesn't prevent conferences from poaching. And if a school really wants to leave, they can try to prove the liquidated damages are an unenforceable penalty (a completely fact based question).

The ACC should do a grant of rights. I am sure ESPN would love it. But something is holding that back.

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 03:24 PM
The GOR might prevent them from leaving one at a time, but it won't stop them from all leaving at once. Furthermore, if seven of the 10 schools got a better offer, the settlement with the other three would not be that expensive.

This is true. And it's the only way the Big XII is breaking up at this point. But who wants 7 big XII schools?

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 03:32 PM
Well, presumably the governing documents have a provision saying the monetary damages are inadequate, and that the conference is entitled to injuctive relief (i.e., they can get a court to issue an order preventing other rights holders from broadcasting the content). Of course, injunctive relief is an equitable remedy, so the conference would have to show, among other things, that monetary damages are inadequate, etc., which seems like a stretch to me, but you know the conference would make the argument. And, who knows? Maybe they would win -- or at least negotiate a larger settlement.

One thing we do know, however, is that this expansion stuff is a bonanza for some lawyers out there.

The thing about the grant of rights that is different, though, is that it isn't a penalty. It's quasi-intellectual property that has been granted to the conference by the schools. So yes, if you are the Big Ten and you steal KU, you could broadcast games anyway on your television package. The Big XII could then file an injunction preventing it, and I think they'd win. But if monetary damages WEREN'T inadequate, the Big Ten would have to start paying the Big XII for every KU football and basketball game that KU had previously granted to the Big XII.

One thing has seemed clear in all of this realignment mess, the poaching conferences haven't really gone to bat to pay for their acquisitions. I just don't see the Big Ten paying the Big XII for the right to air KU games (in my example).

sporthenry
02-26-2013, 03:51 PM
How do TV rights work? Where do non-conference games fall in this? Are they controlled by the conference as well? Is it just home games or all games by that team?

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 04:12 PM
How do TV rights work? Where do non-conference games fall in this? Are they controlled by the conference as well? Is it just home games or all games by that team?

Home teams, generally. Not sure about neutral site games, but I think there is a designated home team before its played, and they get the rights, although I'm sure there are variations there.

sporthenry
02-26-2013, 04:29 PM
Home teams, generally. Not sure about neutral site games, but I think there is a designated home team before its played, and they get the rights, although I'm sure there are variations there.

So you wouldn't lose all Texas games, just games at which they are home. So you'd still get them for half a season. And how do they determine the tiers? If Texas or Kansas were no longer apart of the Big 12, would all of their rights become tier 3 games? Then they could show it on the Jayhawk or LHN? That would be the quickest way for those networks to gain relevance if they hosted the big games.

Just spit-balling here, but I know this has been the common refrain from the Big 12 crew in here, but I feel that there are ways around everything.

El_Diablo
02-26-2013, 04:33 PM
Simply put:

The Grant of Rights does not prevent a school from leaving the conference. But the former conference owns all the rights granted to that conference, so the new conference wouldn't have any rights to televise new team's home games. Most of these contracts are on a year to year basis. It's your basic poison pill. You can poach our teams, but you won't get the value of adding them to your TV contract.

The Exit Fee is liquidated damages. It also doesn't prevent a school from leaving, but it also doesn't prevent conferences from poaching. And if a school really wants to leave, they can try to prove the liquidated damages are an unenforceable penalty (a completely fact based question).

The ACC should do a grant of rights. I am sure ESPN would love it. But something is holding that back.

Thanks for explaining the grants of rights in the Big Twelve. Just to follow up...if they are done on a year-to-year basis, what would they actually stop? If the PAC 12 came in and offered two teams (say, Oklahoma and Kansas) an invitation to join, and those two schools accepted, what would prevent the schools from just waiting until the current grant of rights expired at the end of the year and then moving on? It seems that most of these conference moves take over a year (or sometimes over two years) before being effected, in which a grant of rights would not really have any impact if the departing schools simply wait for it to expire and then leave.

-jk
02-26-2013, 04:36 PM
Ok, obviously IANAL. Isn't the "grant of rights" just another contract? If a team leaves the big 12 (taking rights, of course), they're in breach of that contract, and can be sued for damages.

Here's where I get confused. How are the damages measured?

If KU goes to the big 10, does espn automatically renegotiate the big 12 package? If they don't renegotiate, are there any damages to collect? (Isn't this the MD argument?)

(And if the big 12 replaces KU with another BE refugee and espn increases the package, does the big 12 owe KU? ;) )

-jk

ForkFondler
02-26-2013, 04:58 PM
This is true. And it's the only way the Big XII is breaking up at this point. But who wants 7 big XII schools?

I figure 4 to the PAC12, 1 or 2 to the SEC, plus 1 or 2 to the B1G.

I don't think 4x16 is going to happen, but after you stop drinking Mountaineer koolaid, that is most likely scenario.

gocanes0506
02-26-2013, 05:12 PM
I do not see the Big 12 dissolving as the ralignments are all about football. ACC has no legs in football past VT and FSU in football. ACC is the most unstable league. They will only stablize if ND becomes a football member. I understand we are ACC fans but the threat of dissolving is more on the ACC than any league. The only thing that may save the ACC is the fact that the PAC 12 will need members to expand. The only schools that make sense geographically are Boise State, Nevada, a few other schools in states they already own and then Big 12 schools. The life of the ACC or the Big 12 will come down to which conference grabs schools first. If the Big 10, Big 12, or SEC goes first the ACC is screwed. If the PAC 12 goes first the ACC may be saved. The ACC has to get ND in the conference and convince a school or two from the Big 12, Big 10 or SEC to join. Grabbing Big East scraps only furthers the uncertainity of the league. The best bet is to grab a WVU and have ND join. WVU is complaining about traveling right now. That is the best bet to get them added.

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 05:36 PM
Thanks for explaining the grants of rights in the Big Twelve. Just to follow up...if they are done on a year-to-year basis, what would they actually stop? If the PAC 12 came in and offered two teams (say, Oklahoma and Kansas) an invitation to join, and those two schools accepted, what would prevent the schools from just waiting until the current grant of rights expired at the end of the year and then moving on? It seems that most of these conference moves take over a year (or sometimes over two years) before being effected, in which a grant of rights would not really have any impact if the departing schools simply wait for it to expire and then leave.

Apologies, I wasn't clear -- I meant the grants are USUALLY done on a year to year basis. Duke, for instance, grants its rights to ESPN through the ACC (probably not exactly right, but bear with me) on a year to year basis. Duke still owns its 2014 rights (assuming fiscal=calendar year for this explanation). So up to some designated deadline, Duke could leave the ACC, pay $50MM, and do whatever the hell it wanted.

But the Big XII went all in and granted the next 13 years worth of rights. If a team leaves, it has to leave without being able to sell the next dozen or so years of its Tier 1 and 2 football games. That was the new twist that was added to it.

It's not a blanket grant of rights -- basically, the schools granted their rights such that if ESPN/FOX want to air their football/basketball games at a tier 1/tier 2 level, then they can (probably over-simplifying it). But if KU went to the Big Ten, and had a home football game against Indiana, and neither ESPN or FOX picked that game up that week, KU could air the game on "Tier 3" (basically, "everything else"), because the Big XII let the schools keep the "Tier 3" rights. And if KU went to the Big Ten, all of those Tier 3 rights get turned over to B1G Network. My head hurts.

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 05:37 PM
There was a great quote the other day on Big 12 vs. ACC:

"The Big 12 schools hate their conference and love their TV contract, the ACC schools love their conference and hate their TV contract." There is a lot of truth to that.

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 05:49 PM
Ok, obviously IANAL. Isn't the "grant of rights" just another contract? If a team leaves the big 12 (taking rights, of course), they're in breach of that contract, and can be sued for damages.

Here's where I get confused. How are the damages measured?

If KU goes to the big 10, does espn automatically renegotiate the big 12 package? If they don't renegotiate, are there any damages to collect? (Isn't this the MD argument?)

(And if the big 12 replaces KU with another BE refugee and espn increases the package, does the big 12 owe KU? ;) )

-jk

It's not a breach of contract, though. It's a breach of property rights. The Big Ten isn't in a contract with the Big XII, so if it airs a KU game that the Big XII wanted to air, it is violating the Big XII's property rights. (Same as if I put the Duke logo on t-shirts and start selling it without Duke's permission). Sure, there could be economic incentives to do it anyway, but the grant of rights puts the acquiring conference on notice. I.e., poison pill.

If I have gobs of money (i.e. the Big Ten) and start making money off something I don't have a right to make money on, but I can afford to pay the damages, so I get sued, pay the damages, and keep doing it, everything will depend on how it impacts the owner of those rights. Is monetary relief enough? Usually it is, but who knows in this case. It's kinda unprecedented.

Edited to add: The winning argument for a school that wants to escape the Grant of Rights is to somehow have it declared unenforceable by the grantee. That's an even tougher nut to crack than saying liquidated damages are unenforceable penalties. Not sure how you get there.

El_Diablo
02-26-2013, 06:38 PM
Apologies, I wasn't clear -- I meant the grants are USUALLY done on a year to year basis . . . . But the Big XII went all in and granted the next 13 years worth of rights.

Got it--thanks.


The winning argument for a school that wants to escape the Grant of Rights is to somehow have it declared unenforceable by the grantee. That's an even tougher nut to crack than saying liquidated damages are unenforceable penalties. Not sure how you get there.

I think there's another way around it (other than showing the grants as unenforceable on their own, which may or may not be the case depending on how they are structured).

If a school were to leave the conference, it would apparently violate whatever conference bylaw is in place (which sounds like it is subject to a predetermined liquidated damages claim, in the form of an "exit fee") as well as violating the grant of rights agreement (which is basically an IP licensing agreement). Now, I would venture to guess that there is probably a great deal of overlap at play here, in that the exit fee is largely designed to offset lost revenues to the conference, which is based mostly on the Fox/ESPN television deal. Therefore, if one remedy is enforced, it would be highly duplicative to enforce the other. So the conference could gets the exit fee (or most of the exit fee, to the extent it's not merely punitive) but not the ability to enforce the grant of rights. Or the grant of rights is enforced (meaning the Big Twelve would have to continue paying the school its share of the television deal even though it's in another conference), but the exit fee would go away or be drastically reduced to the point that it becomes a trifling amount.

This duplication aspect may also be why the ACC has not pursued a grant of rights with each member--that it would undermine the $50 million exit fee to a large extent.

Duvall
02-26-2013, 06:40 PM
The ACC should do a grant of rights. I am sure ESPN would love it. But something is holding that back.

Well, for one thing it would have stopped the ACC for exchanging Maryland for Louisville.

JasonEvans
02-26-2013, 06:59 PM
There was a great quote the other day on Big 12 vs. ACC:

"The Big 12 schools hate their conference and love their TV contract, the ACC schools love their conference and hate their TV contract." There is a lot of truth to that.

I never post "Wow, great post" comments because they add nothing to the board and are are against our "needless post" rules. As a Mod, I need to know about this kind of stuff.

So, in explaining why I never do needless posts that merely compliment a previous post, I have gotten around the rule that would prevent me from doing just that about the above post, which, more so than darn near any post in recent memory, qualifies for the...

WOW, GREAT POST!

...treatment.

-Jason "that quote is so money!" Evans

-jk
02-26-2013, 08:19 PM
It's not a breach of contract, though. It's a breach of property rights. The Big Ten isn't in a contract with the Big XII, so if it airs a KU game that the Big XII wanted to air, it is violating the Big XII's property rights. (Same as if I put the Duke logo on t-shirts and start selling it without Duke's permission). Sure, there could be economic incentives to do it anyway, but the grant of rights puts the acquiring conference on notice. I.e., poison pill.

If I have gobs of money (i.e. the Big Ten) and start making money off something I don't have a right to make money on, but I can afford to pay the damages, so I get sued, pay the damages, and keep doing it, everything will depend on how it impacts the owner of those rights. Is monetary relief enough? Usually it is, but who knows in this case. It's kinda unprecedented.

Edited to add: The winning argument for a school that wants to escape the Grant of Rights is to somehow have it declared unenforceable by the grantee. That's an even tougher nut to crack than saying liquidated damages are unenforceable penalties. Not sure how you get there.

I'm still not sure how licensing a "grant of rights" is different from a contract. Again, IANAL. I'm just trying to figure what this "grant of rights" actually means. It seems to me it's a legal agreement between the school and the big 12. Break the agreement, and there could be damages.

My hypothetical situation where KU leaves the big 12 for the big 10, the big 10 network starts airing KU games, and the big 12 sues KU - for what? Presumably damages of some sort and the big 12 has to show a loss. If they can show a loss, I'll grant KU is on the hook for it (not the big 10, of course - they don't have an agreement with the big 12, though espn has one with both conferences - quite the conflict). What if there isn't a loss? Are there still damages?

-jk

uh_no
02-26-2013, 08:21 PM
I'm still not sure how licensing a "grant of rights" is different from a contract. Again, IANAL. I'm just trying to figure what this "grant of rights" actually means. It seems to me it's a legal agreement between the school and the big 12. Break the agreement, and there could be damages.

My hypothetical situation where KU leaves the big 12 for the big 10, the big 10 network starts airing KU games, and the big 12 sues KU - for what? Presumably damages of some sort and the big 12 has to show a loss. If they can show a loss, I'll grant KU is on the hook for it (not the big 10, of course - they don't have an agreement with the big 12, though espn has one with both conferences - quite the conflict). What if there isn't a loss? Are there still damages?

-jk

It's more akin to intellectual property, they can not only get damages for games already aired, but more importantly can get an injunction against the Big10 airing the games in the future.

A-Tex Devil
02-26-2013, 08:39 PM
I'm still not sure how licensing a "grant of rights" is different from a contract. Again, IANAL. I'm just trying to figure what this "grant of rights" actually means. It seems to me it's a legal agreement between the school and the big 12. Break the agreement, and there could be damages.

My hypothetical situation where KU leaves the big 12 for the big 10, the big 10 network starts airing KU games, and the big 12 sues KU - for what? Presumably damages of some sort and the big 12 has to show a loss. If they can show a loss, I'll grant KU is on the hook for it (not the big 10, of course - they don't have an agreement with the big 12, though espn has one with both conferences - quite the conflict). What if there isn't a loss? Are there still damages?

-jk

The Big 12 wouldn't sue KU, they'd sue the Big 10 for airing rights owned by the Big 12. That's why it's a property claim akin to infringement or trespassing, not a contract claim.

ForkFondler
02-26-2013, 11:33 PM
The Big 12 wouldn't sue KU, they'd sue the Big 10 for airing rights owned by the Big 12. That's why it's a property claim akin to infringement or trespassing, not a contract claim.

If the B1G really wanted Kansas, it seems like they could probably negotiate an exit fee with the rest of the B12. If the B1G could more than compensate the B12 for the loss of KU relative to a replacement (e.g. Cincy), wouldn't the B12 agree to it?

sporthenry
02-27-2013, 12:41 AM
If the B1G really wanted Kansas, it seems like they could probably negotiate an exit fee with the rest of the B12. If the B1G could more than compensate the B12 for the loss of KU relative to a replacement (e.g. Cincy), wouldn't the B12 agree to it?

I don't know about the law stuff. It doesn't seem right that there are ways around the exit fees but not ways around this. But we'll see.

However, the one thing I did see about this was that the Big 10 and the Pac 12 have other GOR agreements. So by them poaching other teams through the GORs, it makes theirs less valuable and vulnerable to teams leaving even though this realignment stuff has to settle down eventually.

As far as 7 Big 12 teams leaving, I could see that happen if the Pac 12 poaches a few and the ACC loses teams to both the SEC and Big 10 although at that point, it might as well be a combination of the ACC/Big 12 coming together.

sagegrouse
02-27-2013, 08:39 AM
Back to the OP: Seven pages of threads and no more messages provide further stuff on UNC and UVa to the Big Ten. Can we conclude that isn't gonna happen anytime soon?

I am enjoying the discussion of conference realignment issues, but I think we buried the lead.

sagegrouse

A-Tex Devil
02-27-2013, 10:24 AM
I don't know about the law stuff. It doesn't seem right that there are ways around the exit fees but not ways around this. But we'll see.

However, the one thing I did see about this was that the Big 10 and the Pac 12 have other GOR agreements. So by them poaching other teams through the GORs, it makes theirs less valuable and vulnerable to teams leaving even though this realignment stuff has to settle down eventually.

As far as 7 Big 12 teams leaving, I could see that happen if the Pac 12 poaches a few and the ACC loses teams to both the SEC and Big 10 although at that point, it might as well be a combination of the ACC/Big 12 coming together.

The purpose of the Pac 12 and B1G grant of rights are somewhat different. First, no one is leaving those conferences. The GOR in these instances helps get better/more TV money. This certainly is helpful for the Big 12 as well, but it

As far as OP goes -- look, the Sporting News picked it up. And while that certainly isn't the end all, be all, I don't think any "conclusions" can be made one way or the other. Sure, you can't prove a negative, but if I'd posted the Maryland rumors in September (and there were many, and all from "rumormongers") there would be the same pushback. Look what happened. The coded comments by B1G Ten officials on their own would raise my hackles, though, because ALL of their easy targets are in the ACC except perhaps two (KU, UT) depending on how you feel about the Big XII grant of rights. ND clearly isn't an easy target. The Maryland exit fee litigation is hugely important to the ACC imho.

One more point on the "7 teams leaving Big 12" -- the problem is that there are probably only 3, maybe 4, teams that are attractive. The rest have no place to go, really. The Pac 12 or Big Ten aren't going to take Baylor or Iowa St simply because they can. The only teams with value add to other conferences are Texas, OU, KU and perhaps Oklahoma St. and West Virginia. It's kind of a backhanded compliment, but that actually creates some stability in the big XII when you throw the grant of rights in with it.

A-Tex Devil
02-27-2013, 10:43 AM
The purpose of the Pac 12 and B1G grant of rights are somewhat different. First, no one is leaving those conferences. The GOR in these instances helps get better/more TV money. This certainly is helpful for the Big 12 as well, but it



Finishing this thought.... ... but it is also a deterrent to teams in the conferences and to other conferences.

sporthenry
02-27-2013, 11:43 AM
One more point on the "7 teams leaving Big 12" -- the problem is that there are probably only 3, maybe 4, teams that are attractive. The rest have no place to go, really. The Pac 12 or Big Ten aren't going to take Baylor or Iowa St simply because they can. The only teams with value add to other conferences are Texas, OU, KU and perhaps Oklahoma St. and West Virginia. It's kind of a backhanded compliment, but that actually creates some stability in the big XII when you throw the grant of rights in with it.

But the point is, if 2 of the ACC teams go to the Big 10, 2 more jump to the SEC, then 2 or more of the Big 12 jumps to the Pac 12, the ACC and Big 12 would have a combined 19 teams. You'd have to trim parts of the ACC but you could go to a 16 team, 2 division conference with the remnants of the Big 12 and Notre Dame and then put WVU back in the East.

ForkFondler
02-27-2013, 01:30 PM
One more point on the "7 teams leaving Big 12" -- the problem is that there are probably only 3, maybe 4, teams that are attractive. The rest have no place to go, really. The Pac 12 or Big Ten aren't going to take Baylor or Iowa St simply because they can. The only teams with value add to other conferences are Texas, OU, KU and perhaps Oklahoma St. and West Virginia. It's kind of a backhanded compliment, but that actually creates some stability in the big XII when you throw the grant of rights in with it.

My "Austria-Hungary" comment is entirely predicated on the idea of 4, rather than 5, superconferences. The PAC12 can only expand by picking from the B12, period. Therefore, any notion that the ACC would be the first to go is nonsense. TT might be able to tag into the PAC 12 with Texas and OU. Since they are AAU, Iowa State has an outside shot at either the PAC12 or B1G. Kansas has to be a top target for the B1G. OKSt and KSt might fit into the SEC. WVU might get into the SEC or the ACC afterall. Baylor and TCU would be counting their GOR money for sure.

That said, I expect an 8 team playoff with five AQs and 3 at large spots.

toooskies
02-27-2013, 02:00 PM
About the $50 million penalty for leaving:

Surely, Maryland probably won't cause $50 million in monetary damages for leaving. However, the agreement between schools must have been between all teams, i.e. you can't change the exit fee based on which team is leaving.

So, the question effectively there isn't so much whether Maryland is causing the $50 million in damages; it's whether if ANY team would cause $50 million in damages if they left. Is it possible that if, say, UNC left, is it possible the conference would suffer $50 million in damages? And if so, would this justify applying the fee (in full) to Maryland?

TexHawk
02-27-2013, 03:00 PM
My "Austria-Hungary" comment is entirely predicated on the idea of 4, rather than 5, superconferences. The PAC12 can only expand by picking from the B12, period. Therefore, any notion that the ACC would be the first to go is nonsense. TT might be able to tag into the PAC 12 with Texas and OU. Since they are AAU, Iowa State has an outside shot at either the PAC12 or B1G. Kansas has to be a top target for the B1G. OKSt and KSt might fit into the SEC. WVU might get into the SEC or the ACC afterall. Baylor and TCU would be counting their GOR money for sure.

I guess I still don't get this. As you say, the Pac12 is essentially blocked from getting to 16, unless they want to bring in Boise State and others like that. Their next closest options are Texas/OU and their little sisters. But, ignoring the GOR for now, there is absolutely no incentive for Texas to join the Pac12, unless the conference drastically changes it's TV contract (which the member schools would never go for). Same goes for the Big10, for that matter. The Big12 is the only conference that will let Texas run with their Longhorn Network and hoard all of that revenue. The Big12, as dysfunctional as it may appear, is the only place that Texas can get what it really wants. They want to be able to compete on their own merit via their network, not share Tier 3 revenue, but also stay competitive for national titles (which basically crosses off a move to the SEC).

So that means we are looking at 5 conferences, at a minimum. I have never understood the inevitability of 16 team conferences. Geography gets in the way.

(I suppose Texas's other option is independence, which would cause all sorts of craziness.)

A-Tex Devil
02-27-2013, 03:23 PM
I guess I still don't get this. As you say, the Pac12 is essentially blocked from getting to 16, unless they want to bring in Boise State and others like that. Their next closest options are Texas/OU and their little sisters. But, ignoring the GOR for now, there is absolutely no incentive for Texas to join the Pac12, unless the conference drastically changes it's TV contract (which the member schools would never go for). Same goes for the Big10, for that matter. The Big12 is the only conference that will let Texas run with their Longhorn Network and hoard all of that revenue. The Big12, as dysfunctional as it may appear, is the only place that Texas can get what it really wants. They want to be able to compete on their own merit via their network, not share Tier 3 revenue, but also stay competitive for national titles (which basically crosses off a move to the SEC).

So that means we are looking at 5 conferences, at a minimum. I have never understood the inevitability of 16 team conferences. Geography gets in the way.

(I suppose Texas's other option is independence, which would cause all sorts of craziness.)

I think the PAC 12 is fat and happy as is, too. Sure, they'd listen if Texas or OU were interested and able, but I don't think they are either.

There isn't some magic formula for a conference. 16 is only better than 12 if adding teams also increases the size of your pie. Different conferences have different ingredients in their pie (demographics, academics, athletic achievement, etc.). The Big Ten showed what they think their "pie" is made of by adding two schools simply based on geography and population.

I think we'll stay at 5 as well. I just don't think the Big Ten is done yet.

wilko
02-28-2013, 08:53 AM
I'm not sure what to make of this lawsuit (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-cable-many-tv-channels-175346042.html) exactly...

Perhaps some legal eagle on the board is familiar or some other party is more well versed from a TV marketing perspective; with the actual case rather than this vague description OF the case...

If I understand the implications of this... it could conceivably limit the reach of a given conferences cable subscriber base - Which would affect conference earnings, correct?

A-Tex Devil
02-28-2013, 10:42 AM
I'm not sure what to make of this lawsuit (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-cable-many-tv-channels-175346042.html) exactly...

Perhaps some legal eagle on the board is familiar or some other party is more well versed from a TV marketing perspective; with the actual case rather than this vague description OF the case...

If I understand the implications of this... it could conceivably limit the reach of a given conferences cable subscriber base - Which would affect conference earnings, correct?

Yeah.... I guess there is some anti-competitive stuff in there, but it's more a matter of one oligopoly vs. another, and the media companies are winning. Not sure what Cablevision's legal basis is going to be, but I imagine their lawyers are smarter than me and have found a real cause of action. But this sounds a lot like the owners locking out players/raising ticket prices to protect themselves from themselves.

If I am Cablevision, and I just want ESPN, but not all of the other channels ESPN forces me to sell, then I can either play hardball and call ESPN's bluff, or cave. If I do the former, I risk losing subscribers to competitors that aren't taking the same stand I am. if I do the latter, I pass those prices on to end consumer. If cable companies start colluding and refusing to cave to the media companies, isn't that anti-competitive as well, though? I guess this is a completely different discussion.

All that said, I think we are eventually heading to a la carte cable offerings, but I imagine that is going to be driven by the end consumer as they unplug from cable altogether.

ns7
02-28-2013, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately for us, UNC is the glue that holds the ACC together, similar to how Texas holds the Big XII together.

Right now I don't think UNC will leave the ACC. They pretty much run the conference (e.g., Swofford in as commissioner), and they're actually pretty cool about sharing money equally, unlike Texas, so everyone else is unhappy. Also, they don't really care about football money that much. They seem content to just make money by being elite at basketball.

But if this changes and UNC wants mega-football money like the B1G or the SEC, things could get unstable. UNC to the B1G would suddenly make every other ACC school reevaluate its options. Also, the B1G definitely covets UVA, UNC and probably Georgia Tech. All three schools fit into their obsession for large state schools with massive research budgets.

FSU is the wildcard here. They definitely need the football money to keep up with Florida, who is leaving them in the dust in football. Clemson is a similar situation, but Dabo and Barker (current president) are (or appear to be) loyal to the ACC. (Coaching the ACC certainly makes Dabo look like a great coach.) FSU would probably love to go to the Big XII but they need a dancing partner, and for now Clemson is not willing to depart.

One interesting note: Some Clemson fans feel different, you can read SB's excellent Clemson site for more detail:
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/7/14/3158814/clemson-scar-financial-comparison-fy-11-part-i

Kdogg
02-28-2013, 03:40 PM
I'm not sure what to make of this lawsuit (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-cable-many-tv-channels-175346042.html) exactly...

Perhaps some legal eagle on the board is familiar or some other party is more well versed from a TV marketing perspective; with the actual case rather than this vague description OF the case...

If I understand the implications of this... it could conceivably limit the reach of a given conferences cable subscriber base - Which would affect conference earnings, correct?

If the cable/sat companies ever go to la caret pricing the Big Ten is toast. They are dependent on television money from the Big Ten network and I can see millions dumping it if they could. It will never happen though.

Dr. Rosenrosen
02-28-2013, 04:08 PM
This is so nauseatingly tiring. I just wish the money grubbing, rivalry destroying, athletic program killing commissioners (and in some cases university leadership) would hurry up and do their evil and let's be done with this. At some point, they will all turn around wonder what the hell they built - I'm guessing a product that lacks luster with fan bases that lose interest or better yet revolt - but unfortunately still tune in on TV and give the puppeteers the eyeballs their looking for. I know, naive point of view. But I hate it. Hate it. Hate it.

Mudge
02-28-2013, 04:25 PM
If the cable/sat companies ever go to la caret pricing the Big Ten is toast. They are dependent on television money from the Big Ten network and I can see millions dumping it if they could. It will never happen though.

I don't think I agree with this assessment-- the Big 10 schools have bigger student enrollments (and alumni bases) on average, than any other league in the country-- and I'd bet they put more people in the stands, on average, than any other league-- so even if they had to rely entirely on in-person gate revenues, I'd bet they'd have relatively more to work with than any other league... or do you think that if a` la carte pricing comes to cable/sat land, that it won't affect every other league (and every other channel-- including the almighty ESPN networks), as well?

I go back to my argument about what is really going on here-- the Big 10 is an academic conference with a high quality athletic sideline-- they are all (until they took Nebraska) premier research universities with relatively large (in some case, enormous) research budgets, which they help each other to build even bigger (by means of collaboration in their own private association)... the Big 10 schools would not be "toast", even if intercollegiate athletics were eliminated completely, tomorrow... whereas the SEC is a high quality athletic conference made up of mostly mediocre colleges (except Vanderbilt), that rely primarily on their athletic pursuits to keep or raise their profile on the national scene (cf.- University of Alabama, Arkansas, etc.).

sagegrouse
02-28-2013, 04:26 PM
Unfortunately for us, UNC is the glue that holds the ACC together, similar to how Texas holds the Big XII together.

Right now I don't think UNC will leave the ACC. They pretty much run the conference (e.g., Swofford in as commissioner), and they're actually pretty cool about sharing money equally, unlike Texas, so everyone else is unhappy. Also, they don't really care about football money that much. They seem content to just make money by being elite at basketball.

But if this changes and UNC wants mega-football money like the B1G or the SEC, things could get unstable. UNC to the B1G would suddenly make every other ACC school reevaluate its options. Also, the B1G definitely covets UVA, UNC and probably Georgia Tech. All three schools fit into their obsession for large state schools with massive research budgets.

FSU is the wildcard here. They definitely need the football money to keep up with Florida, who is leaving them in the dust in football. Clemson is a similar situation, but Dabo and Barker (current president) are (or appear to be) loyal to the ACC. (Coaching the ACC certainly makes Dabo look like a great coach.) FSU would probably love to go to the Big XII but they need a dancing partner, and for now Clemson is not willing to depart.

One interesting note: Some Clemson fans feel different, you can read SB's excellent Clemson site for more detail:
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/7/14/3158814/clemson-scar-financial-comparison-fy-11-part-i

You compared UNC's position in the ACC to Texas's position in the Big 12. "Glue," you said. Well glue ain't dollars. Texas is #1 in every survey of revenue for college athletics and wa-a-a-ay above anyone else in the Big 12 (OK is second at about 70 percent of Texas's income). In the ACC, UNC is behind, depending on the survey, FSU, Louisville, Duke and UVa and has an income about one-half of Texas's.

The fact that Swofford is commissioner doesn't give UNC any special clout, just like Corrigan as commissioner didn't convey any special benefits to Duke.

There is no question that UNC and a number of other teams (including Duke) would be attractive to other conferences. If they weren't, the ACC would be in really bad shape.

This topic has been covered many times over the past three years, but let me try and summarize what seems to be a Board consensus. FSU and Clemson would be highly desirable only to the Big 12. In-state competition makes the SEC impossible, and academics would be a negative for joining the Big Ten. Sorry, A-Tex and Tex-Hawk and others, but that teh Big 12 is "fly over" country; it makes no geographic sense whatsoever to teams in Flrida and South Carolina. Moreover, who wants to be in a conference where the Longhorns and Sooners dominate everything: Nebraska, Mizzou and the Aggies surely did not. As soon as Colorado had a chance, it jumped to the PAC-12, which was a heckuva lot more agreeable to the burgers of Boulder and Denver than staying in the Big 12.

The Big Ten would be primarily interested in Duke, UNC, Georgia Tech, and UVa. Heck, not even the ACC wanted Virginia Tech.

Would the SEC be interested in UNC and UVa (and Duke)? Probably, but that seems really unlikely to happen. Who wants to be 15th or 16th in a 16-team football conference.

sagegrouse

hurleyfor3
02-28-2013, 04:29 PM
If the cable/sat companies ever go to la caret pricing the Big Ten is toast.

Methinks Comcast didn't buy NBC so that people could jettison the cost of receiving broadcasts of a fifth-place (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/25/3253393/univision-bumps-nbc-into-fifth.html) network.