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.