The problem, as I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong)...
... is that to add new teams (UW, Oregon, Stanford, WV, whoever) the ACC needs to open the GOR. The GOR seems like a lock-box or a cage. You have top open it to add members, but if you open it, your top teams have the opportunity to escape... so, try and add those other teams to increase our value, lose Clemson, and maybe UNC, maybe UVa, maybe FSU... and maybe, if we are fortunate, us... but as a conference, that is suicide. So, it seems, we are stuck at the 14 we have plus the incredibly slim possibility of ND joining for FB.
11 Replies
4y
condition of acceptance. It doesn't "open up the GOR". There is no magic "out" if a new team joins.
(In response to this post by HokieRaven7)
4y
If they just sign onto the exact same GoR that lasts through 2036, then it might give a legal opening for current schools to leave. The problem comes if you want all of the current members to sign onto a new GoR when adding new members.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 7/10/2022, 1:35:56 PM
(In response to this post by HokieRaven7)
4y
to the current GOR.
(In response to this post by tarheelblue)
D
daveinop
4y
the media agreement. no one has seen the media agreement, but typically adding teams would do that. otherwise you wouldn't add teams.
re: GOR, new members would simply sign one.
(In response to this post by HokieRaven7)
4y
the ACC standing pat or adding PAC teams. I know our opinions don't matter (to anyone it seems) but curious what others think. My opinion is add PAC teams. Lets hear it....
(In response to this post by HokieRaven7)
4y
evolve going forward.
(In response to this post by Mongotek)
4y
If the PAC 12 remnants were divided among the ACC and BIG 12, we could end up with 4 16+ member conferences, all of which could contend for nattys.
(In response to this post by Mongotek)
4y
More ammunition you give lawyers to try to argue for breaking the GOR. They can argue that this is not the same conference we agreed to be part of, or this is not the same deal we agreed to - such as PAC ACC partnership could cause. But that is just ammunition for lawyers to make their case. The purpose of the GOR is to allow for how to deal with teams joining or leaving. If teams join the are required to sign the GOR. Additions don't end the GOR, instead the GOR gives guidance to additions or subtractions
(In response to this post by HokieRaven7)
D
daveinop
4y
the new teams...that argument would go nowhere.
though it didn't involve the GOR, one of the arguments Maryland made was that they voted against the penalty they were being asked pay. IIRC, that carried some weight.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
4y
without seeing the legalize, hard to know for sure. Bu where there is a way amd no remedy is needed, easier to add than destroy or tear it up. Plus before the new schools sign it, you can close loopholes and say look we have this discussion with ESPN or NBC. If we do this ou we can renegotiate for this. You would get this or we stand pat. Let us see how those schools decide. And here is an admentdment allowimg us to add without anyoe leaving or closing the loophole
(In response to this post by HokieRaven7)