Rumor Swirling That Big Ten Will Be Adding 4 New Schools This Week
- Thread starter Chickadee34
- Start date
You can disagree all you want but the ratings haven't even slightly slipped. College football isn't dropping in popularity. It's actually getting better with the target audience which are people younger than me and probably younger than you.
I think our fan base is one of the few that haven't accepted college football has been a minor league football league since the 80s. Nothing has changed. Accept we're finally going to get more tiers and hopefully better games.
Agreed, college football will only get bigger as the Big Ten and SEC put on more must see nationally relevant matchups.
Contract says top 6 conf champs, there are more than 6 FBS conferences, and will continue to be even if the Pac-12 ceases to exist. There won't be 2-3 by the 2024 season. There are currently 11.
Contracts are typically meaningless--this is no different. Everyone that is relevant will be more than happy to alter that.
If you think they'll be in the ACC until the end of that deal or pay the full buyout we can make a bet
They would've been out long by now if contracts were made to be broken. So would've Clemson and Miami.
There's nothing to bet on. Prove me wrong.
Also, college football is a regional game and the convergence to two superconfernces is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
What are you talking about? Contracts take time to break as you will see. You try to claim anything else here doesn't make sense. They have attorneys reviewing and it and they're waiting for the right time to test it. That's what law is.
See--it isn't, You just want it to be.
If anyone Penn State fan would rather play Pitt, Syracuse, WVU or any other rival that has been dead for decades you're living in the past. Games against Oregon, Washington and USC are infinitely better.
You seriously have to stop pretending it's 1984.
I am not trying to be argumentative and I love the discussion. Just wanted to put that out there.
Several of these schools have wanted out of the ACC contract for a couple of years now. You can't wait until the teams leave in 2035 and then say I told you so. It's a very tight contract. I would've guessed you were right at the outset, but teams haven't left. Texas and OU couldn't get out of their GOR contract without a very, very heft payment.
It's not a regional sport and thankfully hasn't been for decades.
And now the stakes have changed. Corporate law is literally my life. You only challenge something when it's worth the risk. FSU won't be in the ACC within 18 months and they won't be paying the full exit fee. The landscape of college football has changed. They understand they have to leave and now they'll be aggressive.
Not that it matters, but I would have guessed that you were an engineer.
Then why wouldn't have tx/ou fought it? They paid a lot of money to leave and weren't able to break the contract. And fsu is looking at hiring a private equity firm to fund leaving. Based on that evidence, it does not appear it's as easy to break the agreement as you state. I'm pretty sure that the TX/OU ADs have excellent legal representation who would have advised them otherwise.
Texas and Oklahoma prove my point. The contract wasn't honored. They got out of it a year yearly. Again, never said FSU wouldn't pay anything. Said they won't pay the full amount or stay until the end of the contract.
I apologize. I'm not sure how I'm confusing you with this.
I think the ACC GOR is far costlier to break due to the length and stipulations, which is why FSU is turning to private equity as the other poster indicated. It is a bulletproof agreement. The exit is so costly they will need absolutely full revenue from the sec or big10 and possibly more. This will be fascinating. They are held hostage by a bunch of BC’ and Wake Forest types.
Because they paid penalties to get out of it early. That's not finding a way, or breaking, the contract. I thought you said you were a lawyer. I am having my doubts now.
And let's circle back. This latest discussion started because you said, quote, 'Contracts are typically meaningless--this is no different.'
UT, OU, and FSU (likely Miami and Clemson as well) would like to have a word with you.
Just take the L and we can move on to the next point.
UT, OU, and FSU (likely Miami and Clemson as well) would like to have a word with you.
Just take the L and we can move on to the next point.
Go back and read the words I wrote.Because they paid penalties to get out of it early. That's not finding a way, or breaking, the contract. I thought you said you were a lawyer. I am having my doubts now.
Was the contract breached?
It's not bulletproof. Nothing is. I don't disagree over "far costlier to break" though. It will cost them far more than Texas for example but it won't be the full amount and it won't be in 2036 or whenever it expires.
Correct--they are typically meaningless. The contract won't be fulfilled.And let's circle back. This latest discussion started because you said, quote, 'Contracts are typically meaningless--this is no different.'
UT, OU, and FSU (likely Miami and Clemson as well) would like to have a word with you.
Just take the L and we can move on to the next point.
If you think paying a buyout is somehow fulfilling the contract I don't know what to tell you. Attorneys literally get paid to find ways to reduce buyouts in order to break a contract.
Technically, that it is since the buyout is defined in the contract and hence, part of the contract.
When you said you are involved with corporate law, can you be a little bit more specific on your role?
Take the L baby, just take it, and we will all be a bit more impressed with your debating skills...
We will see by Aug 15 how strong the agreement is as that is the deadline to give notice to the ACC. If nothing occurs by that date you know the document is bulletproof. Why did FSU, or any other ACC school, sign away their rights for 20 freaking years .
I can't even begin to explain how wrong you are or how little you apparently understand contracts. Although this is why people pay me so...Technically, that it is since the buyout is defined in the contract and hence, part of the contract.
When you said you are involved with corporate law, can you be a little bit more specific on your role?
Take the L baby, just take it, and we will all be a bit more impressed with your debating skills...
That's a great question. They lacked any foresight into how much the landscape was going to change. I'm sticking with FSU and others will leave within 18 months and none will pay anything to the stated buyout. We'll only see something by 8/15 if the SEC or Big Ten offer them a full share which I don't see happening. I still think UNC leaves first despite their claims. But I also didn't think Oregon and Washington was going to happen today so...
If someone (acc) says, we have a contact and you can't leave unless you (fsu) pay us a bazillion dollars. FSU says that your contract is bull. But then, FSU says fine, we'll pay your bazillion dollar and the ACC says, great we'll take your bazillion dollars
In this scenario, are you claiming that FSU successfully broke the contact? Seriously, just dumb it down for idiots like me because maybe we are arguing the same side of the coin here and I was just confused.
Last edited:
Well, I am not a contact lawyer. You didn't actually clarify that you were either. And if you are, you should have headed down to Austin and Norman because you would have made a killing schoolin' no nothin' suthern lawyers.
Does look like FSU will be the first domino, and maybe pretty quick.
And, it just occurred to me that this might be relevant to the rivalry discussion.
Absolutely. It has been useless for years and that clown Emmert led the clown show.
I don’t really see it. Obviously, FSU wants to leave the ACC and is doing everything in its power to make it happen, but I don’t get how they money works out. What is the point in getting private equity involved? To raise the money to break the GOR? That would be so ridiculously costly that by the time you get increased revenues from a new conference then pay off the private equity investment that FSU would be worse off.
I feel like all the FSU bluster is just talk and nothing is happening for another decade there.
Where did I say FSU was paying a portion of the buyout? If any terms of the contract are changed that originally contract isn't fulfilled. That considered "legally breaking the contract". Maybe the word break has you confused
If FSU isn't in a worse position they'd do it because it's likely necessary for their long term success. Teams don't want left behind and are worried about what the end game is
😆 LOL... If anyone pays you it only proves WC Fields was spot on.
Similar threads
