The GOR is a contract between the ACC and each school and gives the ACC the rights to the games. It enabled the ACC to negotiate the ACCN as part of the ESPN contract. But even without the GOR, there would be a contract between the ACC and ESPN and the schools would be getting paid some yearly amount. So the GOR is not required and is an optional contract that the ACC chose to implement for how it will execute the ESPN contract. Is that an accurate statement? So is FSU making millions in additional revenue under the GOR? Or are they making that under the ESPN contract because of the GOR negotiating power? I'm uncertain how directly the GOR can be tied to annual revenue and would love to hear the expert views here. Minor thing but his Taylor Swift example didn't read right to me. It just sounded wrong with mixing end consumers, content creators, and other content creators. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say TS had a deal with Ticketmaster to produce and promote her concerts and changed rates on them? The end consumer buying a ticket is not part of this discussion. Right? And lawyers, if you know that FSU has a weak case, do you advise them as such or just happily take their money to represent them? Is this whole thing because a bunch of rich boosters are having a tantrum or do you think they were advised that their case is solid? It's probably a really dumb question (take their money), but figured I'd ask anyway since I do enjoy the insights from this board. Thanks all.