LeadingEdge

It also contains no quantitative data.

It’s now easier to apply to a larger number of schools, and state flagship universities often are a good value proposition.

** Edited by LeadingEdge at 9/26/2024, 11:55:01 PM

This conference won’t get a huge TV deal, so it has to way possible TV dollars against travel costs if the conference is widely dispersed geographically.

Infer to FSU that’s its suit is a dog. Perhaps FSU secretly wants that result to look for a face-saving way to tiptoe away from litigating further.

seeking. They wanted a real cap. She effectively said no.

It would be buying rides to a team’s home slate. it would have no contract with the conference, which sets conference schedules.

The grant of rights gives rights only as necessary to perform the ESPN contract. If the ESPN contract ends, the grant of rights grants nothing else.

No need for a covert litigation action.

Texas has one of the largest athletic department budgets and one of the biggest and most moneyed followings in college sports - to the point it rivals pro teams. It's also in Austin, one of the hottest and fastest-growing cities in the country. FSU, on the other hand, while being the biggest school in the ACC, is downsizing its football stadium to seat just under 70,000 because it can't fill it. Tallahassee is in rural Florida and is de facto southern Georgia/Alabama. For any conference, taking Texas is a no-brainer despite its narcissism and demands. FSU doesn't offer that order of magnitude of upside. ** Edited by LeadingEdge at 7/17/2024, 11:01:51 AM

Change in TV revenue year over year Increased payouts from the expanded CFP Altered payouts from the NCAA, which is money from the hoops NCAAT. In that case, it's not clear if distributed revenue will rise or fall due to the House settlement (if approved) vis-a-vis rising TV revenue. Also, some departmental costs used as eye candy to attract recruits likely will (or should) be cut as the NIL, role, and minutes now dominate college choices for revenue sports athletes. In addition, $20M (which is not a fixed amount) is a cap, not an all-or-nothing expenditure. And it's not really a cap, because schools will find a way to use NIL to pay whatever extra they wish to pay.

Does that mean the ACC implicity concedes that Clemson's suit should proceed and the ACC's suit against Clemson (filed in NC) must be put on hold?

The schools in the states you cite or not public. She did this to raise concern in those states about the diminution of sovereign immunity. Her claim of sovereign immunity is BS, though. As noted elsewhere in this thread, Florida State waived that by entering into the very agreements it is now challenging. Fun fact: Even though she wrote to the AG of Pennsylvania, Pitt is not a public school. It is public-private hybrid.

You have to have 8 minimum to have an NCAA-recognized conference, and you aren't pulling schools from the SEC, B10, and probably B12 (I presume it signed a GOR). You start with the Mag 7: U.Va. Va Tech UNC NCSU Clemson FSU Miami If you go to only 8, which would the Mag 7/ESPN pick? Duke? GT? Louisville? Wake? My guess is Duke gets picked due to the UNC rivalry but perhaps on a reduced share. If you go to 10, my guess is the Mag 7/ESPN add GT and Louisville, perhaps also at reduced shares. While Wake is an ACC charter member, it's just so small, and none of the other ACC charter members view Wake as a primary rival who must make the trip. Sorry, Wake.

That kills the argument that the GOR becomes inapplicable to a school that leaves.

The North Carolina system board must approve a move for any member school, which includes UNC and NCSU. I don't know if UNC-CH could sue to challenge the GOR and exit fee even if that by itself is not leaving the ACC. But certainly UNC-CH would not do so unless it was assured of system board approval. Such approval is unlikely unless UNC is taking NCSU to the new conference.

1. As noted below, Clemson and UNC will be even less enthused about the ACC if FSU leaves, Clemson particularly. Arguably, FSU and Clemson are the only big football brands in the ACC, whereas the SEC and B1G have several. 2. The ACC will be earning about the same per school in TV money as the Big 12 for the foreseeable future, with the ACC position being slightly better due to Stanford and Cal taking reduced shares and SMU getting no share. There will be no big ACC-Big 12 TV money gap on a per-school basis. 3. If FSU leaves, ESPN could decline to continue the ACC TV deal during the upcoming look-in (2026?), if reports that it can decline are correct. If ESPN does so, the GOR is defunct because it only grants to the ACC TV rights sufficient to perform the ACC-ESPN contract. Would ESPN still continue that TV deal with FSU gone and with Stanford/Cal/SMU diluting the ratings power of the remaining matchups? We don't know. Not a flaw but a thought: If the ACC allows one member to escape the GOR in exchange for a payment, does that give the other schools (e.g., Clemson) a strong legal argument that the GOR is thereby nullified because part of the deal was that FSU was also tied in? Stated differently, why should a school remain bound when the crown jewel football property (accept that for argument's sake) is no longer there? The prestige of the conference is lowered, and the prospect of selling more tickets when FSU comes to town is gone.

Presume one spot is saved for a Group of 5 champion to fend off the antitrust plaintiffs. Is it four spots each of a 12-team playoff, 14-team playoff, or a 16-team playoff? The bigger the playoff is, the more four apiece is tolerable in light of the leverage of the parties.

I don't gamble and use cable, so I don't know. But I think most streams run significantly behind cable. If so, that would make inducing prop betting by streamers hard, no?

There is no diversity of citizenship and no federal question so far. The Supreme Court would take a case from a state Supreme Court only if there was a Constitutional or other federal issue.

Perhaps it’s dead, and the Clemson guy is saying the same thing, but I wonder about motivation whenever a player in the deal is reporting the news.

Stanford Cal Washington State Oregon State Air Force SMU Rice Tulane Non-football members: Gonzaga St. Mary’s

I’d love to see the two remaining PAC teams try this and claim the PAC side of the Rose Bowl.

Which would once again ensure it stays independent for the foreseeable future.

I see a lot of support for it on this board, but it will get blackballed by at least half of the schools in the ACC. Aside from maybe Louisville, I doubt any other ACC school would support its membership. there are many hard no’s in the membership for that school.

The average B10 school has 35,000 undergrads. The biggest undergraduate school in the ACC is FSU, at 32,000. While school size itself doesn't determine viewership, it's a substantial component.

Can you imagine the political blowback on a college campus if all women's non-revs were turned into de facto club sports so that salaries can be paid to football players and basketball players? I think universities will keep non-revs and send the bill through an additional fee to each student.

When the non-revs are made a separate department, they will become a university-funded expense. Basketball and football will pay for themselves. The cost of non-revs will become a line item on tuition bills. For schools that already charge a student athletics fee (like U.Va.), that fee will go up. So, parents and students, you will pay more for college. Non-P5 schools already charge athletics fees because their whole athletic programs are essentially non-rev. This will put P5 schools in the same boat regarding non-revs. The "gender equity" stuff will be a battle. The gender equity crowd will want as much pay for women as football and men's basketball players. But only football and men's basketball generate positive revenue to use for salaries. If the gender equity folks win that argument, it's going to be a budgetary mess. Title IX doesn't require paying the women as employees, but that won't stop those advocating for it.

It could happen by any of these routes: 1. The NLRB case. That's a tough path because of the lack of NLRB jurisdiction over state schools. 2. States start forcing employee status in state legislation. Remember California got the NIL ball rolling with its statute. California might do it again with employee status. I think it will. 3. The courts rule that NCAA amateurism rules violate antitrust laws. This is what Justice Kavanaugh wrote about. I think the courts will so rule within five years if the issue is not first decided by the states (see #2). When the courts strike down the NCAA amateurism rules, that won't force colleges to make SAs employees. But some colleges will rush for advantage by paying a salary, which will make the SAs employees. The arms race then kicks in an a all P5+ programs do the same, very quickly. When that happens, likely non-revs (except women's basketball) are separated so that you have a revenue-sport athletic department and a non-rev department.

And that's that the ESPN contract is a bad deal. The ACC makes as much in TV money as the Big 12 and PAC and is on track to do so through the end of the GOR. The ACC doesn't make as much as the SEC or B10 because it doesn't deserve to do so. The average B10 school is 35,000 undergrads whereas the ACC average is 15,000. That translates into eyeballs on screens, then TV ratings, then dollars. We're small. The SEC averages about 25,000 per school. But the SEC has far more big football brands than the ACC. So it attracts more eyeballs and gets more money. Perhaps one (or two or three or four; debatable) ACC schools have SEC/B10 levels of TV followership and value, but that doesn't mean the conference as a whole isn't valued fairly. Even in the B10 and SEC, there are schools that are underpaid if you look at individual school value. Just as Clemson subsidizes ACC football with its following (for now), Michigan and OSU subsidize the B10, and Bama and Georgia subsidize the SEC.

Whether college athletes are employees is not something expressly covered by the NLRA. It's a political issue that should be decided by Congress. Congress is responsible for making laws, not non-elected bureaucrats.

Lots of research from being the highest-ranked engineering school in the south, and it's in a growing state and a major marketplace. But, alas, TV football eyeball count rules everything nowadays.

I have looked and cannot find them. I’d also like to find a link to the ACC constitution. TIA