Big12 podcaster begging for links says: A bunch of ACC schools have contacted the BIG12 based on rumors (ever notice how much click bait is based on click bait rumors) FSU is going to sue the ACC and break the GOR because they were lied to, proven by the fact they got left out of the CFP. Anybody else feel like it's groundhog day...none of this is different than the crap posted over the summer except the latest trigger event. And none of it has any basis in logic or reason. As long as the GOR holds, it would be beyond stupid for any ACC team to leave for the BIG12 and the idea that FSU was lied to and will sue and break the GOR is as silly now as it was over the summer when it was "reported".

He asserts that the big12 matters more than the ACC since Texas got in over FSU. However, that is only true until June, after which the big12 will be much more lightly rated than the ACC. Both conferences are hose going forward, though. But let's be realistic about the post Texas/OU big12

though, and some people will believe it.

At least with the ACC has some (not sure how many) schools that the P2 would want. This alone gives the ACC a bit of staying power (along with the marathon GOR) But the BigXII having schools that the P2 want? Nada. Both the BigXII and Pac-12 have already been picked through. I think a lot of BigXII people think that if they just keep stacking the grocery store deli roast beef on the scale, that it will eventually become filet mignon. Trying to build a P2-worthy resume from one of these G2 conferences will be increasingly hard to do moving forward when you have a cartel like the CFPC picking winners and losers to protect its wealth and other off the field interests.

think it's more that The P2 took the top teams of the B12 and PAC, and there are some on this board that think that it will not happen to the ACC. Take the top 4 schools out of the ACC, and you will be in the same boat with the B12. How this shakes out is anyone's guess, but it will be determined by the networks in football - not by rumors, click bait, or any of our opinions. This is not the B12 vs ACC as many on this board would like to argue. It's a silly argument, and misses the larger point. College football is being reshaped, and if you don't have a P2 invite in your back pocket, then you absolutely should be looking around for a landing spot just in case. California and Stanford were too elite to even fathom that the PAC would fall apart, and they didn't have a landing spot. Take the B12's name, and change it to the ACC, as it's my contention that the name of the conference is irrelevent. I'd like to have a P4 (5), but that won't be our reality I fear. I think we will have a 3'rd 20-24 team conference (maybe more) that spans coast to coast, and from my perspective, that may not be such a bad thing. We can call it the ACC for all I care. It won't be such a bad thing because you will have regional divisions, pods, or whatever you want to call it, and that bring the rivalries and local flavor back.

TX/OK stayed until 1 year left and negotiated a buy out. PAC's was done. ACC has a dozen years left. A lot will happen in a dozen years.

I don’t believe that anyone on this board can explain in detail FSU’s and Clemson’s exit strategies and how they will deal with the GOR issue, but I also don’t believe that anyone can claim that the GOR is ironclad and will prevent any school from leaving. There are too many unknowns at this time to argue either side. I agree with you that the situation in the ACC is different than it was in the PAC-12, but I also have a hard time believing that if the best ACC brands did leave that ESPN will continue to pay the remaining schools the same amount. One of the unknowns that I mentioned in the last paragraph is that the TV contract has never been released to the public. Lawyers have to travel to the corporate office just to view the only copies. If schools did leave and there was a loss of conference revenue then that would certainly cause instability in the ACC among all members just like the revenue issue caused instability with the PAC-12 members. With so many unknowns, we are left to speculation on whether schools can leave or not, but the actions and words of the people who should have the best understanding of the situation can be revealing. Here are a just a few: “It fortifies the fortress. If a couple want to go, they can go and it won’t take down the conference like we saw on the west coast. That’s not going to happen.” - Jim Phillips, ACC commissioner, speaking about ACC expansion. . . . . . “We, of course, are not satisfied with our current situation," McCullough (FSU President) said. "We love the ACC. We love our partners at ESPN. Our goal would be to continue to stay in the ACC, but staying in the ACC under the current situation is hard for us to figure out how we remain competitive unless there was a major change in the revenue distribution within the conference in the ACC conference itself. . . . . . Trustee Justin Roth (FSU), who said he doesn’t see things working with the ACC, said he could call for FSU to form an exit plan from the conference in the next 12 months.” . . . . . “We have gotten a lot of counsel on that document, and that will not be a document that keeps us from taking action," FSU board chairman Peter Collins said in regards to the ACC grant of rights. "I'll leave it at that." . . . . . School administrators “indicate an announcement” about a Clemson “bolt from its growing financial disadvantage in the ACC relative to SEC and Big Ten schools is coming soon, probably along with” FSU and UNC and “perhaps another ACC school or more," according to Gene Sapakoff of the Charleston POST & COURIER. South Carolina officials have been trying to "block Clemson from the SEC." When asked about a timetable a Clemson senior administrator said, “Sooner than later.” - Sports Bussiness Journal . . . . . "I feel like the Big Ten and the SEC, who are the big pillars in this whole thing, I just feel like, I don't know when it's gonna happen. But they're not staying at 16. They're gonna go at least 20 and so who's going where, right? Where's North Carolina going? Where's Oregon, where's Washington going? Where's Clemson going to end up? Where's Florida State gonna go? Where's Miami. There's just so much, it's fascinating, that I'm sure it won't happen, maybe it will during the season. But I'm guessing it happens after this year." - Kirk Herbstreit None of these statements would have been made by these individuals if they believed that the GOR was ironclad and would prevent any school from leaving in the next 12 years.

Even if the current system isn't blown up, they probably have 10 years, the cost of more than a year or 2 is too high to make leaving work. There is nothing to indicate the GOR is breakable and OK/TX staying in the Big12 for 3 years to say it's not breakable.

want it, it will happen. The GOR and contract can be renegotiated the second ESPN gives the ACC teams an offer they can not refuse. The B12 was just lucky the PAC thought they were all that, and wouldn't take any of the leftover B12 schools, and ESPN gave the B12 the contract that was in all likelihood meant for an expanded PAC. Keep in mind that USC and UCLA had already left. I see the networks completing the P2 with the top 3 or 4 ACC schools, and they will then give the leftovers an offer they can't refuse. Will the new #3 conference be called the ACC, or will it be called the B12? I think it's irrelevent.

A separate division that pays players? Fed involvement? Lawsuit by women's athletes that NIL being paid more to men violates Title IX? None of this points to going 12 years with the current landscape and the new landscape will likely blow up the conferences built on football money entirely and thus the BIG/SEC/ACC/BIG12 GOR and media deals. I have said since this silliness started in the spring, best thing the ACC can do is sit quietly, rake in their not so bad money and wait for the shoe to drop because the mess that's being created now is just the final straw that completely blows the old system up. All evidence points to that still being the best approach, despite the stupidity of adding 3 more teams to complicate the untangling when it happens.

is going on inside the Conference Realignment piece. The highly rated Academic Schools bring in way more money on the Academic side than they do on the Sports Business side. Everyone says it because it's true, but money drives this, what some are not seeing is that some schools don't want to be labeled by the Sports Business side. They want to be labeled more by the Academic side, because they make way more money from that side of their operation. That will determine who goes where IMHO with the new pay to play division becomes a reality. ** Edited by Stech at 12/6/2023, 10:57:34 AM

it is going to happen. As I said below in an original post, that's the BIG BANG!!!

The NCAA Pay4Play division is not serious. It’s being floated in the media to make them (NCAA) look as though they are doing something helpful. They hope this will be viewed by the court as a compromise step. The court is not going to mediate this case. It will simply rule in favor of one side or the other. If the current litigation goes against the NCAA, the athletes will be declared employees. Half of them getting a $30k trust fund will not come close to what the NLRB wants. I think we should just put the wheels in motion to pay all the athletes. How much they get will vary by conference or by school. Those things will be determined at the bottom end by minimum wage laws and at the top by big athletic department budgets. NIL whether inside the institution or from collectives will be where the real money circulates. There will be unions; there will be contracts; and there will be more stability in rosters. The schools should prefer that NIL not be administered by the institutions because it would fall under Title IX constraints. The collectives are free from those requirements.

The BIG's westward expansion, FOX backing up the truck to the BIG, ACC going bi-coastal, BIG12 going conference USA with G5 schools. All these really bad, knee jerk decisions will be irrelevant because the whole thing blows up. ** Edited by Vienna_Hokie at 12/6/2023, 7:22:23 PM

But what in fact happened, is that the CFPC chose the Alabama brand over the FSU brand. Plain and simple. And in order to choose Bama, they also had to take Texas. But that was just fine for the CFPC since they love the Texas brand more than the FSU brand too. Everyone is just hiding behind the conference comparison BS. If Georgia had won, FSU would have been 4th, not 5th. They would have rolled with the 4 unbeatens. Texas would have been 5th. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 12/5/2023, 4:56:42 PM

Sorry, more fake news from the Big 12 ,would of the Q, elections were stolen etc.

than the ACC. I think Texas got in because it is Texas and a future SEC member. At least if any other Big XII school not named Oklahoma and Texas were in that position, then they probably wouldn't have jumped FSU this year. Personally I would be okay with VT joining Big XII because it would mean renewing its rivalry with WVU. I'm not sure the Big XII at that size would survive if it was no longer a power conference. So if it would be a means to an end so 2-3 regional conferences are created, then I am game.

If VT ends up in the BIG XII we will never have a shot at a national championship in football. It's a long shot in the ACC and where we currently are, but if we moved to the BIG 10 or SEC we would be in a lower tier for a few years, but between the revenue and the recruits seeing that they have a shot at a natty if you are in the big 2 we would eventually move up the ranks. With the BIG XII we would be a second class school.

ACC still has better brands at the top by far, not better than SEC/BIG, but much better than Big12 AND it has a dozen years left on the GOR that prevents those brands from leaving, Big 12 is like 6.

At the same time, I am curious to see if the breach of contract argument has any merit in court. If it does and the ACC's top brands are able to join the P2, then I would say the ACC and Big XII are probably mirror images of each other at that point. Personally, I don't think VT will end up in the P2 because either VT doesn't want to join the proposed new subdivision or VT can't financially sustain it for a long period of time.

the truck stop B12 leftovers in a different category. I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you before those additions, but the addition of Cal and Stanford diluted your football and basketball branding - same with SMU. Academically, the ACC improved, but that doesn't pay the bills.

don't come close to what was lost when Oklahoma and Texas left to join the SEC. The ACC would be in exact same boat if it lost its top brands too. Right now you could say we live in a P2+2 world with the ACC and Big XII being the "+2." Once the P2s have the ACC's top brands, then there is nothing really to stop them from kicking the ACC and the Big XII to the curb. Hence why I said they are mirror images of each other because both are essentially along for the ride until the other shoe drops. Given that the 12-team CFP has already changed from the 6-6 model to the 5-7 model before the first year because of what happened to the Pac-12, it could be interesting to see what other changes are made to it when it is up for renewal. Depending on what year that is scheduled to take place and where that falls in relation to when the ACC's and Big XII's media contracts are set to expire, I might be a little nervous as a conference that it could lose its power conference status. The Big XII might be a little more vulnerable right now because it doesn't have any member that is in the same ballpark as Clemson's, FSU's, and Miami's brand. Will it change to the P3 at some point in the future with the Big XII voted off the island first or will it remain the P4 until both the ACC and Big XII can be voted off the island at the same time? Regardless of which is taken, the endgame will still be the same unless the ACC and Big XII can find a way to convince everyone that they should remain a power conference.

because currently, the ACC have their top brands in place. Because of that, the conversation of the future of the B12 and ACC mecomes muddied. For the sake of argument (or more concisely to avoid one) currently the ACC is the better conference. The assumption, or reality, is that the ACC will lose their top brands to the P2, and it is only then that there can be a fair comparison. There are no teams in the country that can replace a Texas and Oklahoma brand. When they left the B12, there is no way that the top brands of the PAC, ACC, or P2 would even look at the B12 - they were sitting there like WSU and OSU are currently out west. The difference, is that the core of the B12 filled their stadiums every Saturday, no matter who they played, and all of the leftover B12 schools have passionate fans that follow and travel, for both football and basketball. They just don't have that national brand, and they don't reside in the population states that help pad viewership from the passive fan. Except for Houston, and KU, every stadium in the B12 is sold out every Saturday. Arizona and Arizona State will be added to that list next year. Schools like KU and Colorado have turned it around, but we will see if that is sustainable. Take the top 4 brands out of the ACC, and who is left filling their stadiums every Saturday, no matter who they play? It's a pretty short list.

gets in over 13-0 FSU unless they had beaten Bama in the OOC. Even had Oklahoma finished 12-1, but without that pesky Alabama win on its resume, I don't think they'd get in either. And if Baylor or Iowa State would have been the 12-1 team without a Bama OOC win, I am CERTAIN they wouldn't have gotten in over FSU. This was about FSU getting big-timed by a superior brand.

necessarily a reason Texas should have been included over FSU simply because the Big XII was perceived to be a stronger conference than the ACC this year.

that they ranked the bone higher than the one they wanted in the CFP. They could have ranked Alabama #3 and justified it by saying the win over Georgia was better than Texas' win over Alabama.

1. Michigan/Washington 2. Washington/Michigan 3. Alabama 4. Texas and it still would have achieved that goal. If anyone had any questions about the decision, then the Committee could use the Georgia win as being more valuable. The Committee even said in interviews that Alabama's win over the #1 team prove they were 1 of the 4 best teams this year.

#2 seed was likely going to end up playing in the Sugar Bowl which has a long history with the SEC.

or TX/Washington in the Sugar, or maybe just didn't want Washington in the Rose or AL in the sugar because the opponents would gripe, who knows.

allowing Alabama to play there particularly when you look at how far UDub will have to travel to get there.

sham, and we have by any measure, an all BIG and SEC playoff. Ray Charles can see what happened here.

Now I get he is covering the Big XII, so he may be a mouthpiece for the conference just like the talking heads at ESPN and Fox are for their respective conferences. Now whether Drake, the talking heads at ESPN, and the talking heads at Fox truly believe Texas should have gotten in over FSU, we will never know for sure. It is unlikely they will share their true opinions behind closed door because they don't want to take the risk it could become public knowledge and the impact it could have on their professional life.

more interested in the FSU lawsuit angle than anything else. Texas should have gotten in over Alabama, they should not have gotten in over FSU. You go undefeated in your conference - any FBS conference, you should not be shut out of the playoffs (expanded). FSU earned their playoff spot, Alabama lost theirs to Texas.

playing the games if they don't really matter? The final rankings probably should have been the following. 1. Washington 2. Michigan 3. Florida State 4. Texas I flipped Michigan and UDub simply because Oregon was a much tougher opponent than Iowa and they should have been rewarded for it. Plus, UDub would get to play Texas in Rose Bowl. While Michigan and FSU get to play in the Sugar Bowl. Travel would be roughly equal for both games with UDub maybe getting a slight advantage which should be given to the #1 seed.

argument that the B12 is a better conference than the ACC, they are in a stronger position because of the timing of the contracts, and the implosion of the PAC.

I have not listened in its entirety yet and will reserve final conclusions until listening in entirety. From what I have heard so far the Big 12 bias is apparent. He pretty much blew it with his assessment that the inclusion of Texas was a definitive pronouncement about the Big 12 better than the ACC. There MIGHT be some truth about that but, the inclusion of Texas was about nothing more than that being the less messy way to get an SEC team into the final 4 and a welcome to the SEC gift to Texas. The Committee destroyed any credibility they MIGHT have had and made college football at the FBS level a bigger joke than it already was.

it wouldn't look good if they got in and Texas didn't based on head-to-head competition. I had a feeling after Bama beat UGA that the fix was in and that FSU was going to get screwed. The question I have is what if a 12-0 Bama team (which defeated Texas) beat a 12-0 UGA team? I feel that UGA would've gotten in over FSU even if they were #2 and Bama was #1 before the SEC championship game. UGA would drop to #4 and FSU to #5 based on the committee's reasoning for not including FSU because of QB issues. The same would be true if a #1 UGA beat a #2 undefeated Bama team. No matter what, the SEC was getting one team in. Texas screwed up their plan to get two teams in.

hence my disclaimer.

that part yet so I cannot comment. Cliff notes version of what he said?

FSU can sue the ACC for breach of contract for what they sold them in the GOR. Not getting into the playoffs, along with the money they bring the conference, and a few other issues that have litigated on this board. There seems to be an argument out there that FSU might have a case.

I thought it was a new angle. That reasoning was already floated before and debunked for a variety of reasons. I don't know who is now trying to revive that position but, it appears to be hogwash like before.

have predetermined your position, just as the guy doing the podcast is biased, as you stated, you didn't listen to it because of the same reason it seems.

I had not had time to finish(I will), and I reserved and still do reserve final conclusions until hearing EXACTLY what he said. If your interpretation of what I originally said is a good indicator of the accuracy of the cliff notes you relayed then maybe the guy says something more or different. We shall see. My position has not been predetermined but, I offered my initial assessment based on what you and @VTHokie2000 shared in your cliff notes versions. The fact you had not heard those arguments before is surprising and pretty hard to believe.

in its entirety. Kid's got a good voice. Really no new angle or anything of real substance. Yormark continues to do a great marketing job for the conference and lining up shills like this kid to deliver the conference party line just with a different voice. Yormark ran circles around Kliavkoff and it is looking like he will try and do the same to Jim Phillips. The question is whether Phillips will get in the game?

B12, but that is not why I posted the link. I contend that this kid has nothing to do with Yormark, or B12 propaganda. it's what is being discussed out there outside the ACC bubble. Good, Bad, or Ugly - the entire country is discussing the breakup of the ACC. I want that as much as I want the implosion of the PAC - not even a little bit. It is what it is, not what I want it to be, nor what I think it should be, and sticking my head in the sand and attacking the messenger is not a good way to have an honest discussion. I'm an ACC fan too, not a B12 scrill social media bot. College football is changing right before our eyes - and beating our chests that our conference is better than yours, is not the way to approach this. I'm screaming from the rooftop, and no one is listening. Basketball and olympic championships are the only way we can stop this madness, but many are stuck on being "competitive" in football. i don't know how to say this without being disrespectful, but VT is in our camp, not the P2.

the quality and accuracy of the message not the messenger which is a primary step in any honest discussion and I believe that approach is evidenced in my posts in this entire thread.

FSU and it doesn't take into account for inflation.

the same crap that has been spewed for going on a year now? Nothing new in that argument and some of the same Big 12 propaganda already debunked before.

it all comes back to the idea that for some reason (reasons to be updated on an ongoing basis to continue to create clickbait articles with no basis in reality) FSU is going to sue and be successful in their suit and break the GOR because they were lied to by the ACC. They would have to prove that the ACC knew that the ACC would get passed over for a CFP spot and failed to disclose that to FSU in their negotiations of the GOR, yeah, good luck with that. I'll go back to the simple fact. FSU and Clemson have neither taken any legal action NOR made any statement that they are leaving the ACC. The only official statement from anyone in the admin of either school is that if things don't change, they'll have to look at what they are going to do. Well, duh!!! Everything else is speculation and unsourced rumors from clickbait podcasters and social media influencers, most who report on the the BIg12 (don't have to be directly tied to the conference to be a propagandist, fanboi's do it just as well, especially those that get paid by clicks).

how can you say it is different if your original claim of not having read those arguments is truthful?

no proof, other that I had not seen this angle before. Whatever.....................................

was straightforward and there is no path. You stated in one post you had not seen the angle before and in a subsequent post you contend no the angle is different. The answer seems pretty clear unless you did some speedy research to get up to speed on what was said before but, as you say WHATEVER.

Seems like the same argument to me.