so he/she can put PITT in a realignment thread when Pitt isn't considered a program that the B1G or SEC would be poaching from the ACC , nor are they on the same level as Clemson or FSU in being able to demand a bigger cut of Conference revenue and be taken seriously by the media.
I doubt it’s a simple majority and more likely a super majority at least, if not unanimous. It takes a super majority to kick out a member, it’s more than likely it would take at least that much to alter/dissolve such an important document.
San Francisco is a big market. Would love to grab a team from there.
I’m the recent example of Texas and Oklahoma, it needed to be unanimous including all
No. We are talking about realignment. As a consequence, what conference you are in has an economic impact, but we are still talking about realignment.
Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with common events just as you haven’t been keeping up with this thread. Your two best football properties are publicly voicing their concern about the ACC. And this is not coming from some folks on this board instead it’s coming from the president of Florida State University.
Great points all around. This stuff is truly fascinating to me, and others, so I'll put my two cents in as to what I've heard from people on the know:
💯
The ACC should be making much more money, and not be at the B1G/SEC level but in a tier by themself below that.
You’ll need multiple schools to try to challenge itIt doesn't sound like anything happening any time soon (2-3 years) like I mentioned and uneven revenue distribution takes 2/3 approval, you don't think changing/dissolving the GOR will take that much at least. It's doing exactly what is was meant to do as in hold everyone together while it's in force or to near the end at least.
Excerpts from the article:
The league's agreement with its member schools requires an exit fee equal to three times annual revenue, or about $120 million. But the grant of rights could potentially prevent a team from earning TV revenue -- or possibly even broadcasting its games -- until the agreement expires. Phillips has frequently pointed at the plights of Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA as examples of how difficult it would be for a team to exit its grant of rights. The Longhorns and Sooners were forced to wait three seasons after announcing their intent to join the SEC, and still will pay $100 million to buy out the final year of their deal with the Big 12.
ACC schools have 13 years remaining on their deal.
Over the past two years, a number of schools have sent teams of lawyers to examine the official grant of rights document, either looking for a potential pathway out or assurances that the biggest brands can't leave without a serious fight.
As one administrator told ESPN, those reviews have established several potentially compelling arguments for breaking the agreement but have uncovered no obvious loophole that would provide a pathway out without engaging in protracted litigation.
"Is it worth the paper it's written on?" one AD said. "If one school starts to leave, then another, how strong is it? It would involve a major legal battle."
And as one athletic director pointed out, it would also require another conference to extend an invitation to join before knowing whether it would have rights to broadcast that team's games. It's a legal Catch-22.
But for all the bluster -- and at least one ACC athletic director considered Alford's comments little more than playing to his fan base -- the public statements were intended more as a warning than a threat.
Even the most seismic shifts in distribution don't exactly paint the picture of a financial windfall for power programs like Clemson and Florida State, however. Estimates shared by sources with knowledge of the discussions suggest a net shift of between $250,000 and $3 million annually -- "pocket change," as one AD called it -- leading some administrators to wonder if it's worth all the trouble.
Inside the big-money battle that could decide the ACC's future
With ACC powers Florida State and Clemson making more noise about a revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten, realignment rumors are running rampant despite a long-term TV deal.www.espn.com
They can challenge all they want, it doesn't sound like it's going to be something that's decided quickly and no conference is likely to want to add a school while it's in a protracted legal battle. How many presidents of schools looking to bail will want to be in one either? I think not many, if any.
All of the talk revolves lives around the huge downside of a team leaving, losing in court and owing hundreds of millions to the ACC. No school can risk that and no other conference is going to get mixed up in that by offering an ACC school.
You know I read something about a move like that with regards to the B12. From what I’ve read in the past, the ACC GOR is basically copied from the B12 even word for word in parts.
I should have figured that the teams of lawyers the schools have looking at it would have considered that already.
You're assuming the majority of schools in the league are ok with getting shafted
You said in 2-3 years and I’m saying nothing without a 2030 handle and probably only 1–3 years before 2036 at best.
I don’t doubt college football is as important TO Florida State you describe.
They’re pretty important in the grand scheme of things from a money standpoint
No need to eat crow, this is just a back and forth debate. I’m completely 180 from where you are and someone will be right and someone will be wrong. It’s not a big deal which ever way it goes, it’s just conversation.
I love talking college FB and realignment to me is fascinating
I love this back and forth with someone with a different perspective, so I apologize if my last message was a little snarky
Not snarky at all, just some back and forth about the game we all love
2/10 from the Clemson guy
I’m pretty good at history and this is a really bad take
