Pac12 dissolution discussion

[rutgersguy1]

It has been mentioned before that the GOR can’t be gotten rid of with anything but a unanimous vote.

These rumors seem to imply that there is number of schools that can be reached to dissolve the conference, making the GOR irrelevant. However, no one is saying what that number is and I don’t see how they get to 10+ given the schools uncertain to have a future home,

People keep talking like it’s a simple majority and I’ve read other issues like kicking a member out or changing the revenue distribution require a supermajority. You think dissolving the conference wouldn’t be as important lol. It doesn’t make sense.

As to the GOR that took unanimity and I’d expect altering it would require unanimity as well. I’ve said this before, it’s similar to the required unanimity needed from the conferences to change the format and expand the CFP. That original CFP agreement had unanimity so altering it while it was still in force needed unanimity.

 

[rutgersguy1]

8 schools are needed to “dissolve” the GOR
The issue isn’t getting 8
It’s getting 8 a landing spot, and of equal importance, getting out of the GOR

I still don’t believe that. I still think it’s a supermajority at least to dissolve the conference. Other important issues take that much, it doesn’t make sense that an important thing like that wouldn’t as well.

 

[krup]

8 schools are needed to “dissolve” the GOR
The issue isn’t getting 8
It’s getting 8 a landing spot, and of equal importance, getting out of the GOR

The catch 22 is that most school aren’t going to vote to dissolve without a home, but any conference talking to these schools about giving them a home before the ACC is dissolved opens themselves up to a tortious interference lawsuit.

 

[rutgersguy1]

 

[MADHAT1]

So far, what I am getting from this thread --- Syracuse, BC, Pitt, VaTech, Miami: K-A-R-M-A

Some will land somewhere; others will ask to join the AAC.

of that bunch, BC is the only one of those programs I hold a grudge against.
If RU was offered a spot in ACC when they left, I'd have supported them leaving the Big East.

 

[megadrone]

It's fun to watch this from the position that we are in, isn't it? And Syracuse and BC out in the cold!

While I really hate this direction to superconferences, I have to laugh at those two fanbases thinking they were leaving us in the rear view mirror.

 

[JayDogSmooth]

The catch 22 is that most school aren’t going to vote to dissolve without a home, but any conference talking to these schools about giving them a home before the ACC is dissolved opens themselves up to a tortious interference lawsuit.

They definitely need a home, otherwise it’s just bluster

Re a lawsuit / tampering, I’m not an attorney, but based off schools bolting in the past (USC, UCLA,Texas,Ou, BC, Miami, Cuse, VT, Maryland, etc), i’d assume there’s some back channeling negotiations going on as to not hold people / schools liable

 

[JayDogSmooth]

I still don’t believe that. I still think it’s a supermajority at least to dissolve the conference. Other important issues take that much, it doesn’t make sense that an important thing like that wouldn’t as well.

It could be
But Everything I’ve heard though indicates it’s 8 votes
I guess really the only ones who would know for sure are the conference presidents, the ACC and ESPN

 

[retired711]

It has been mentioned before that the GOR can’t be gotten rid of with anything but a unanimous vote.

These rumors seem to imply that there is number of schools that can be reached to dissolve the conference, making the GOR irrelevant. However, no one is saying what that number is and I don’t see how they get to 10+ given the schools uncertain to have a future home,

Are you suggesting that the GOR goes away if a majority or supermajority votes to dissolve the conference? I haven't seen the GOR, but I wonder if that's true, or if the minority can still enforce the GOR. If the GOR doesn't go away if the conference is dissolved, then is there a point to dissolving the confernece?

 

[rutgersguy1]

 

[rutgersguy1]

 

[JayDogSmooth]

View embedded media

View embedded media

Love Alford
But that statement cannot be further from the truth

 

[RUTGERS95]

So far, what I am getting from this thread --- Syracuse, BC, Pitt, VaTech, Miami: K-A-R-M-A

Some will land somewhere; others will ask to join the AAC.

Miami, under Donna Shalaley (however you spell it) was put on a road to ruin. Dallas knew it had to be in the NFC East to be national, Donna did not

 

[RUTGERS95]

the GOR is 75% if modeled, as stated, like B12

 

[RUTGERS95]

how dumb do you have to be to do rev sharing as a conference?????

 

[rucoe89]

of that bunch, BC is the only one of those programs I hold a grudge against.
If RU was offered a spot in ACC when they left, I'd have supported them leaving the Big East.

RU was never given that opportunity. The one that was best for Rutgers came along and we did what we needed to do. Miami and BC did what was best for them at the time. Syracuse got screwed when VT lobbied VA to get them an invite. Pitt and Syracuse eventually took off without warning too. I guess its the way the game is played. For all, it is a game with thieves where for everyone they are on their own despite allegiences each think they have with each other.

 

[RUTGERS95]

haha, last go round we had several 'in the know' posters saying we were going to the ACC and even had the former idiot owner of this site stifling the two of us who knew better. RU was never, NEVER even remotely considered by the ACC on any level deemed worthy. The absolute best justice in CFB would be for BC, Miami, and Sarah to be left out.

 

[krup]

They definitely need a home, otherwise it’s just bluster

Re a lawsuit / tampering, I’m not an attorney, but based off schools bolting in the past (USC, UCLA,Texas,Ou, BC, Miami, Cuse, VT, Maryland, etc), i’d assume there’s some back channeling negotiations going on as to not hold people / schools liable

In none of those examples did the back channeling precede a vote by some of the players to dissolve the conference. That is a whole different animal.

 

[krup]

Are you suggesting that the GOR goes away if a majority or supermajority votes to dissolve the conference? I haven't seen the GOR, but I wonder if that's true, or if the minority can still enforce the GOR. If the GOR doesn't go away if the conference is dissolved, then is there a point to dissolving the confernece?

If it doesn’t go away there is no point to all of these rumors.

 

[retired711]

If it doesn’t go away there is no point to all of these rumors.

Exactly!! TBH, I think a lot of these rumors are clickbait or are invented or spread by people who are entirely clueless. Note that *nobody* predicted the USC/UCLA jump to the Big Ten -- which shows me that people who think they are "in the know" really don't know anything.

 

[krup]

They definitely need a home, otherwise it’s just bluster

Re a lawsuit / tampering, I’m not an attorney, but based off schools bolting in the past (USC, UCLA,Texas,Ou, BC, Miami, Cuse, VT, Maryland, etc), i’d assume there’s some back channeling negotiations going on as to not hold people / schools liable

Here is something I found about tortious interference. If the plaintiff was a school like BC or Syracuse, the defendant was the SEC, B1G or B12, and the third party is the schools that vote to dissolve, this appears to fit. I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea if something like this is a valid complaint.

“To prove tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must show:

• The plaintiff had a business relationship or expected to establish one with a third party;
• The relationship or expected transaction was reasonably likely to benefit the plaintiff financially;
• The defendant knew about the relationship;
• The defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship;
• The interference was improper;
• The defendant’s conduct caused the third party to disrupt or terminate the relationship; and
• The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.”

 

[RUTGERS95]

Exactly!! TBH, I think a lot of these rumors are clickbait or are invented or spread by people who are entirely clueless. Note that *nobody* predicted the USC/UCLA jump to the Big Ten -- which shows me that people who think they are "in the know" really don't know anything.

spot on

I think the usc/ucla thing happened with such secrecy that even politicians in california were caught off guard. That's some wartime zipped lip stuff. impressive

 

[krup]

Exactly!! TBH, I think a lot of these rumors are clickbait or are invented or spread by people who are entirely clueless. Note that *nobody* predicted the USC/UCLA jump to the Big Ten -- which shows me that people who think they are "in the know" really don't know anything.

The Big Ten doesn’t work the way the rumors claim and I doubt the SEC would either. Both would be happy to attack like sharks if ACC schools actually became legally available, but I don’t believe they would have discussions and make promises to schools that are still bound by contract for another decade +.

 

[retired711]

Here is something I found about tortious interference. If the plaintiff was a school like BC or Syracuse, the defendant was the SEC, B1G or B12, and the third party is the schools that vote to dissolve, this appears to fit. I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea if something like this is a valid complaint.

“To prove tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must show:

• The plaintiff had a business relationship or expected to establish one with a third party;
• The relationship or expected transaction was reasonably likely to benefit the plaintiff financially;
• The defendant knew about the relationship;
• The defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship;
• The interference was improper;
• The defendant’s conduct caused the third party to disrupt or terminate the relationship; and
• The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.”

I've been involved in representing a client pursuing a lawsuit claiming tortious breach of contract. Basically, tortious breach of contract involves A inducing B to breach a contract with C. The upshot is that C can sue A in addition to suing B for breaching the contract. So if, for instance, the SEC persuades Florida State to violate the GOR, then the SEC can be sued as well as Florida State.

 

[Mr Magoo]

Forgive me for being Captain Obvious:

Florida State is obviously an attractive school for a conference to have. (I don't want to get into the debate about how important it is or isn't, it doesn't matter.) . I would expect the SEC to be very interested if Florida State becomes available. Maybe the Big Ten would too, but that would require the Big Ten to abandon its commitment to having only schools that have been members of the Association of American Universities (although I doubt this would stop the Big Ten from taking Notre Dame) and it would require the Big Ten to want to move into the Southeast before it takes on more Pacific coast schools. (IMHO, UCLA and USC are not going to want indefinitely to play almost all road games -- and not only in revenue sports -- two to three time zones away, and both schools would look askance at the Big Ten taking on yet another school, Florida State, that is three time zones away).

But no one is going to take on Florida State so long as the ACC's GOR is in force. It is just too legally risky. An individual or business can be sued for inducing the party to a contract to break it. Maybe the GOR can itself be broken in court, but as a lawyer I think this is a long shot.

Fllorida State is in no better position as a member of the Magnificent Seven. Unless the GOR is unenforceable, breaking away from the ACCwould be a breach of contract. The only way this makes sense would be if the Seven think that on their own they could get a *much* better TV contract than as members of the ACC -- so much better than the TV deal would more than offset the legal costs from breaking the GOR. That seems to me unlikely. So it seems to me the Seven lack the leverage to force unequal revenue distribution on the other ACC schools.

So to me the idea that the ACC is about to fall apart or that Florida State on its own will break away is fallacious.

I don’t see how there is anything to give these 7 schools the leverage to force unequal revenue sharing. They will leave regardless when the time is right. The “undesirable 7” would be foolish to give in.

 

[Mr Magoo]

Exactly!! TBH, I think a lot of these rumors are clickbait or are invented or spread by people who are entirely clueless. Note that *nobody* predicted the USC/UCLA jump to the Big Ten -- which shows me that people who think they are "in the know" really don't know anything.

Much like all the so-called March madness selection pundits…who ultimately were no better than many people in this forum.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Exactly!! TBH, I think a lot of these rumors are clickbait or are invented or spread by people who are entirely clueless. Note that *nobody* predicted the USC/UCLA jump to the Big Ten -- which shows me that people who think they are "in the know" really don't know anything.

I think the problem is it doesn't make reasonable or logical sense. That has to exist on some level to make all these claims.

I posted a scenario shortly after OU/Texas left to the SEC where the B10 could respond with a swath of schools from the west, then some from the east when available whose moves that could possibly net you ND. It was a little out there and some here thought it was a little wild and crazy to think of a 20-24 team conference but it was logical and made biz sense even if in somewhat uncharted territory. Now it seems something like that is quite possible in the future. I didn't guarantee it would happen and I have no inside info but at least you can follow the logic and sense from A to Z.

It's the same way I'm coming up with this idea of the ACC being proactive in the vicinity of 2030 and trying to get geographically convenient UCF, WVU and possibly UConn and Cincy into the fold to buttress themselves against the eventual departures of some schools. It can pave the way for some dealmaking too between those wanting to leave and the conference to facilitate new additions. I can't predict that will happen but it's a logical path and makes biz sense and you can follow the line of thought.

Problem with things out there now like 7 schools is that it's not logical and doesn't make sense. Are there 7 landing spots in the SEC or B10? Not likely. Is the B12 a better spot than the ACC? I'd say it's a wash financially and geography leans towards the ACC. Schools, including most of the ones that move or look to move, generally don't want to and only do so because they're forced by financial circumstances. IMO that "force" isn't there when it comes to the B12 and ACC, they're comparable. Outside of a few that would be desirable for the B10/SEC, why would any of the others upset the applecart for the B12? It doesn't make sense.

Also it doesn't make sense that the ACC would need a supermajority for things like kicking members out or adding members or changing revenue but only a simple majority to disband its existence. I mean that's just a trivial matter, right? Same goes for the GOR and trying to change it. It took a unanimous vote to enact it and logically you would think it would take a unanimous vote to alter it. We've seen a sort of precedent with the CFP format change and the unanimity needed for it.

If you can paint me picture from A to Z where I can follow the line of thinking and it's logical, I can say okay maybe but all I see are big holes in anything that most put out there.

 

[RUTGERS95]

I don’t see how there is anything to give these 7 schools the leverage to force unequal revenue sharing. They will leave regardless when the time is right. The “undesirable 7” would be foolish to give in.

exactly!!!!!

 

[Doctor Worm]

I checked the ACC Constitution and Bylaws which is readily available online.

I didn't see anything specific to the dissolution of the conference. However, an amendment to the Constitution requires a 3/4 vote. I assume that absent specific dissolution wording, the amendment terms would apply.

So if I am reading it right, it would take 12 votes (11 if you exclude ND) to dissolve the ACC. Not happening.

 

[Knight Shift]

 

[MADHAT1]

View embedded media

What is it with you and that message board dummies site.
Have they neen corect on anything they spread or is that site the Onion of message board info.

 

[airspace]

Just what I believe, no more or less. Jim Delaney always wanted to go to the SE and grab a few ACC schools (primarily, Virginia and North Carolina). I believe that has been the Big 10 plan for years. What has been happening recently drew the interest of the Big 10 fromthe west coast (it is going to be there regardless). If the ACC collapses, I believe the Big 10 will act (again the schools of interest will contact the Big 10).

Every time the Big 10 has expanded, nobody had a clue until the last moment. At Maryland, a few disgruntled members exposed it, but it was way late in the game and it was done.

Last year, when USC/UCLA joined the Big 10, just about anybody not in the SEC reached out to the Big 10. Always happens, happened when Penn State came, happened when Nebraska came, happened when Maryland & Rutgers came. People smell blood in the water and know that the Big 10 is the most stable conference out there.

I believe if the ACC does not collapse (shortly), the Big 10 will again focus on the west coast (the schools of interest are waiting). Because they are not going to leave USC/UCLA on an island. Just a matter of who joins them and if the funds are available for expansion

Retired911, I do believe that Cal/Stanford are very desired by the Big 10 presidents (who run this conference). I remember the president of Ohio State (Stanford grad) saying that expansion was not done and she kind of indicated what they were looking for. The silence of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford is telling. May not be anything BUT go back to how the Big 10 operates in a cone of silence.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Just what I believe, no more or less. Jim Delaney always wanted to go to the SE and grab a few ACC schools (primarily, Virginia and North Carolina). I believe that has been the Big 10 plan for years. What has been happening recently drew the interest of the Big 10 fromthe west coast (it is going to be there regardless). If the ACC collapses, I believe the Big 10 will act (again the schools of interest will contact the Big 10).

Every time the Big 10 has expanded, nobody had a clue until the last moment. At Maryland, a few disgruntled members exposed it, but it was way late in the game and it was done.

Last year, when USC/UCLA joined the Big 10, just about anybody not in the SEC reached out to the Big 10. Always happens, happened when Penn State came, happened when Nebraska came, happened when Maryland & Rutgers came. People smell blood in the water and know that the Big 10 is the most stable conference out there.

I believe if the ACC does not collapse (shortly), the Big 10 will again focus on the west coast (the schools of interest are waiting). Because they are not going to leave USC/UCLA on an island. Just a matter of who joins them and if the funds are available for expansion

Retired911, I do believe that Cal/Stanford are very desired by the Big 10 presidents (who run this conference). I remember the president of Ohio State (Stanford grad) saying that expansion was not done and she kind of indicated what they were looking for. The silence of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford is telling. May not be anything BUT go back to how the Big 10 operates in a cone of silence.

Delaney never said Va and no one in the B1G or any affiliation even intimated UVA. He did say south but MD gives us everything we could want from what we'd need in VA. Delaney did say the Carolinas, not Carolina but Carolinas

 

[retired711]

[snip]
I believe if the ACC does not collapse (shortly), the Big 10 will again focus on the west coast (the schools of interest are waiting). Because they are not going to leave USC/UCLA on an island. Just a matter of who joins them and if the funds are available for expansion

Retired911, I do believe that Cal/Stanford are very desired by the Big 10 presidents (who run this conference). I remember the president of Ohio State (Stanford grad) saying that expansion was not done and she kind of indicated what they were looking for. The silence of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford is telling. May not be anything BUT go back to how the Big 10 operates in a cone of silence.

Yes, Cal/Stanford are attractive in some ways. I think the "we can't leave USC/UCLA on an island" argument is quite powerful because if the two schools are left on an island, at least one (UCLA) might jump. The fact that there is not yet a deal between the Pac-12 and the networks makes me think that the Pac-12 is not doing well in the negotiations. But would the Big Ten take on all four of those Pacific Coast schools? And if only two, which ones? Who knows??

 

[airspace]

Yes, Cal/Stanford are attractive in some ways. I think the "we can't leave USC/UCLA on an island" argument is quite powerful because if the two schools are left on an island, at least one (UCLA) might jump. The fact that there is not yet a deal between the Pac-12 and the networks makes me think that the Pac-12 is not doing well in the negotiations. But would the Big Ten take on all four of those Pacific Coast schools? And if only two, which ones? Who knows??

From what I have read/heard, it depends on what kind of media deal they can work to finance the expansion. I am hearing Oregon/Washington BUT really depends on the media partner.

I believe they could add all 4, add a Friday night and Saturday night games could finance it. The problem with late night Saturday night games is only the west coast was/is watching. Add some mid west teams to the mix to get mid west eyes, the numbers would go up.

 

[rucoe89]

8 schools are needed to “dissolve” the GOR
The issue isn’t getting 8
It’s getting 8 a landing spot, and of equal importance, getting out of the GOR

Good point. Step 1 was find 8 that want out. Done. Step 2 is ok, where do the 8 go. Hold that thought on 1.

 

[rutgersguy1]

A number higher than the 5M extra I’ve read in the past but still not 30-40M which was never going to happen.

 

[rucoe89]

From what I have read/heard, it depends on what kind of media deal they can work to finance the expansion. I am hearing Oregon/Washington BUT really depends on the media partner.

I believe they could add all 4, add a Friday night and Saturday night games could finance it. The problem with late night Saturday night games is only the west coast was/is watching. Add some mid west teams to the mix to get mid west eyes, the numbers would go up.

Hearing Oregon / UW too and not much, if any, chatter about Cal/Stanford. Will be bummed to see Cal/Standord left out because as an RU alum near both schools, would love to see Rutgers out here on a somewhat regular basis.

 

[Nycrusupporter]

A number higher than the 5M extra I’ve read in the past but still not 30-40M which was never going to happen.

View embedded media

View embedded media

This is a desperation move that will ruin the conference. You are basically ensuring a two tiered conference with a number of schools that will never be competitive.

 

[retired711]

So you can imagine Cal/Stanford's worse case scenario. UCLA/USC gone. If Oregon/Washington go to the Big Ten, that leaves eight teams in the Pac-"12." The non-Pacific coast teams (Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State) would jump to the Big 12. Washington State and Oregon State can go to the Mountain West Conference. (This makes a lot of sense for Washington State, which is located very close to Idaho; but really not for Oregon State, which isn't far from Oregon.) Where the hell does that leave Cal and Stanford?? And what if the Big Ten decides to take Stanford to lure Notre Dame? Then Cal is standing alone. Now do you understand why Cal fans are so pessimistic?