(04-09-2015 05:25 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)miko33 Wrote:  But let's get real - even the most prestigious universities who offer scholarships for sports continue to run a two tiered system where the BB and FB "student athletes" are accepted at one level, and everyone else has to meet a higher minimum standard to be accepted. It's a joke. MOST BB and FB "student athletes" shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of a college campus.

I'm thinking Stanford, Rice, and Notre Dame fans might disagree, for starters.

Agreed. The graduation rate for the Boston College FB program is in the top 5 every year. It's FB graduation rate is actually HIGHER than the general student population (which is high to begin with). Furthermore, BC athletes are required to take undergrad courses and majors that are available to all other students. No "special programs/majors" for athletes.

I would not want it any other way.

I agree with Miko's point that athletes may get special consideration in getting accepted by admissions, but they have to be qualified; and at the above institutions, and many others, they have to do the same work as the other students.

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Until a GOR is challenged, no one really knows how rock solid it is.

If anyone's gonna take a shot at it, my money's on Delany and the Big Ten.

IMO, the are three things wrong with this statement:

1. GORs are hardly novel. They have been well utilized in other industries for years and have been viewed by the courts as binding and enforceable. If such a challenge were to be made, the courts would likely look to prior application of these instruments in other areas. Not saying that it would be an impossibility, but a conference, and more importantly, individual programs, would be taking huge risks which, IMO, they would be unlikely to take given ramifications of losing in court. In my experience, institutions by their very nature are generally risk averse.

2. What individual programs from other P5 conferences would even be interested? Let's be real here. As mentioned above, if any P5 program, such as from the ACC, was interested in making such a move, they would have done so prior to voluntarily signing the GOR. At the very least, programs would have kept their options open and not signed the document if they had a desire to bolt the conference at some point. Simple logic.

3. Delany is not the "king" of the BiG. He works for, and answers to, the BiG university presidents. See point #1 about institutions and their willingness to accept big risks. IMO, there is even more to this point. Since the BiG also has a GOR, and, as widely reported, these GORs are more or less mirror images of one another, any challenge by the BiG to another Conference's GOR becomes, IMO, a de-facto challenge to THEIR OWN GOR. IMO, one of the benefits which the GORs have ushered into CFB is stability. The proverbial conference "musical chairs" appears over for the for the foreseeable future. As a Uconn fan, I understand that might not be good news, but for the P5, IMO, stability makes networks much more comfortable in doing long-term, big $$ deals with the conferences. An assault on one GOR is an assault on all the GORS which, IMO, creates the kind of uncertainty across all of the CFB market which would not be desired by the universities.

There is a reason why CFB realignment has basically stopped despite all of the baseless speculation that gets thrown around on these boards. It is what it is. Some people just refuse to see the facts for what they are, IMO.

If a GOR is enforceable (and I think they are), then all aspects of the contract are enforceable, which includes a conferences obligation to pay that school. I cannot imagine an instance where a court would allow a conference to continue collecting revenue attributable to a school without providing that school their share.

(04-09-2015 05:34 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Until a GOR is challenged, no one really knows how rock solid it is.

If anyone's gonna take a shot at it, my money's on Delany and the Big Ten.

IMO, the are three things wrong with this statement:

1. GORs are hardly novel. They have been well utilized in other industries for years and have been viewed by the courts as binding and enforceable. If such a challenge were to be made, the courts would likely look to prior application of these instruments in other areas. Not saying that it would be an impossibility, but a conference, and more importantly, individual programs, would be taking huge risks which, IMO, they would be unlikely to take given ramifications of losing in court. In my experience, institutions by their very nature are generally risk averse.

2. What individual programs from other P5 conferences would even be interested? Let's be real here. As mentioned above, if any P5 program, such as from the ACC, was interested in making such a move, they would have done so prior to voluntarily signing the GOR. At the very least, programs would have kept their options open and not signed the document if they had a desire to bolt the conference at some point. Simple logic.

3. Delany is not the "king" of the BiG. He works for, and answers to, the BiG university presidents. See point #1 about institutions and their willingness to accept big risks. IMO, there is even more to this point. Since the BiG also has a GOR, and, as widely reported, these GORs are more or less mirror images of one another, any challenge by the BiG to another Conference's GOR becomes, IMO, a de-facto challenge to THEIR OWN GOR. IMO, one of the benefits which the GORs have ushered into CFB is stability. The proverbial conference "musical chairs" appears over for the for the foreseeable future. As a Uconn fan, I understand that might not be good news, but for the P5, IMO, stability makes networks much more comfortable in doing long-term, big $$ deals with the conferences. An assault on one GOR is an assault on all the GORS which, IMO, creates the kind of uncertainty across all of the CFB market which would not be desired by the universities.

There is a reason why CFB realignment has basically stopped despite all of the baseless speculation that gets thrown around on these boards. It is what it is. Some people just refuse to see the facts for what they are, IMO.

If a GOR is enforceable (and I think they are), then all aspects of the contract are enforceable, which includes a conferences obligation to pay that school. I cannot imagine an instance where a court would allow a conference to continue collecting revenue attributable to a school without providing that school their share.

IMO, I would think that depends on how the GOR is tied into the overall conference revenue sharing agreements. If a school voluntarily agreed to forfeit said revenues for the duration of the GOR in the event they left the conference, then, IMO, that could be a risk/issue for the school. I understand your point and its logic, but that is yet another risk that a school or conference would need to weigh, IMO. Again, IMO, it is no coincidence that the signing of these GORs has seemingly stopped the realignment train cold, at least for the foreseeable future.

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Until a GOR is challenged, no one really knows how rock solid it is.

If anyone's gonna take a shot at it, my money's on Delany and the Big Ten.

IMO, the are three things wrong with this statement:

1. GORs are hardly novel. They have been well utilized in other industries for years and have been viewed by the courts as binding and enforceable. If such a challenge were to be made, the courts would likely look to prior application of these instruments in other areas. Not saying that it would be an impossibility, but a conference, and more importantly, individual programs, would be taking huge risks which, IMO, they would be unlikely to take given ramifications of losing in court. In my experience, institutions by their very nature are generally risk averse.

2. What individual programs from other P5 conferences would even be interested? Let's be real here. As mentioned above, if any P5 program, such as from the ACC, was interested in making such a move, they would have done so prior to voluntarily signing the GOR. At the very least, programs would have kept their options open and not signed the document if they had a desire to bolt the conference at some point. Simple logic.

3. Delany is not the "king" of the BiG. He works for, and answers to, the BiG university presidents. See point #1 about institutions and their willingness to accept big risks. IMO, there is even more to this point. Since the BiG also has a GOR, and, as widely reported, these GORs are more or less mirror images of one another, any challenge by the BiG to another Conference's GOR becomes, IMO, a de-facto challenge to THEIR OWN GOR. IMO, one of the benefits which the GORs have ushered into CFB is stability. The proverbial conference "musical chairs" appears over for the for the foreseeable future. As a Uconn fan, I understand that might not be good news, but for the P5, IMO, stability makes networks much more comfortable in doing long-term, big $$ deals with the conferences. An assault on one GOR is an assault on all the GORS which, IMO, creates the kind of uncertainty across all of the CFB market which would not be desired by the universities.

There is a reason why CFB realignment has basically stopped despite all of the baseless speculation that gets thrown around on these boards. It is what it is. Some people just refuse to see the facts for what they are, IMO.

Like I said, I don't know...you don't know...no one actually knows if there's a way around it until it's actually challenged. All GORs across different industries are not the same.

Surprise, surprise. A Big 12/ACC member fan wants to act like they are safe from more defections/raidings. No one knows what the future holds. All you have is your own baseless, bias speculation.

(04-09-2015 05:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Until a GOR is challenged, no one really knows how rock solid it is.

If anyone's gonna take a shot at it, my money's on Delany and the Big Ten.

IMO, the are three things wrong with this statement:

1. GORs are hardly novel. They have been well utilized in other industries for years and have been viewed by the courts as binding and enforceable. If such a challenge were to be made, the courts would likely look to prior application of these instruments in other areas. Not saying that it would be an impossibility, but a conference, and more importantly, individual programs, would be taking huge risks which, IMO, they would be unlikely to take given ramifications of losing in court. In my experience, institutions by their very nature are generally risk averse.

2. What individual programs from other P5 conferences would even be interested? Let's be real here. As mentioned above, if any P5 program, such as from the ACC, was interested in making such a move, they would have done so prior to voluntarily signing the GOR. At the very least, programs would have kept their options open and not signed the document if they had a desire to bolt the conference at some point. Simple logic.

3. Delany is not the "king" of the BiG. He works for, and answers to, the BiG university presidents. See point #1 about institutions and their willingness to accept big risks. IMO, there is even more to this point. Since the BiG also has a GOR, and, as widely reported, these GORs are more or less mirror images of one another, any challenge by the BiG to another Conference's GOR becomes, IMO, a de-facto challenge to THEIR OWN GOR. IMO, one of the benefits which the GORs have ushered into CFB is stability. The proverbial conference "musical chairs" appears over for the for the foreseeable future. As a Uconn fan, I understand that might not be good news, but for the P5, IMO, stability makes networks much more comfortable in doing long-term, big $$ deals with the conferences. An assault on one GOR is an assault on all the GORS which, IMO, creates the kind of uncertainty across all of the CFB market which would not be desired by the universities.

There is a reason why CFB realignment has basically stopped despite all of the baseless speculation that gets thrown around on these boards. It is what it is. Some people just refuse to see the facts for what they are, IMO.

Like I said, I don't know...you don't know...no one actually knows if there's a way around it until it's actually challenged. All GORs across different industries are not the same.

Surprise, surprise. A Big 12/ACC member fan wants to act like they are safe from more defections/raidings. No one knows what the future holds. All you have is your own baseless, bias speculation.

So, you called his "speculation" ( although he cites other industry GOR's) and then raised with your own baseless speculation?

I want to hear from miko's sources before I believe anything.

(04-09-2015 05:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Until a GOR is challenged, no one really knows how rock solid it is.

If anyone's gonna take a shot at it, my money's on Delany and the Big Ten.

IMO, the are three things wrong with this statement:

1. GORs are hardly novel. They have been well utilized in other industries for years and have been viewed by the courts as binding and enforceable. If such a challenge were to be made, the courts would likely look to prior application of these instruments in other areas. Not saying that it would be an impossibility, but a conference, and more importantly, individual programs, would be taking huge risks which, IMO, they would be unlikely to take given ramifications of losing in court. In my experience, institutions by their very nature are generally risk averse.

2. What individual programs from other P5 conferences would even be interested? Let's be real here. As mentioned above, if any P5 program, such as from the ACC, was interested in making such a move, they would have done so prior to voluntarily signing the GOR. At the very least, programs would have kept their options open and not signed the document if they had a desire to bolt the conference at some point. Simple logic.

3. Delany is not the "king" of the BiG. He works for, and answers to, the BiG university presidents. See point #1 about institutions and their willingness to accept big risks. IMO, there is even more to this point. Since the BiG also has a GOR, and, as widely reported, these GORs are more or less mirror images of one another, any challenge by the BiG to another Conference's GOR becomes, IMO, a de-facto challenge to THEIR OWN GOR. IMO, one of the benefits which the GORs have ushered into CFB is stability. The proverbial conference "musical chairs" appears over for the for the foreseeable future. As a Uconn fan, I understand that might not be good news, but for the P5, IMO, stability makes networks much more comfortable in doing long-term, big $$ deals with the conferences. An assault on one GOR is an assault on all the GORS which, IMO, creates the kind of uncertainty across all of the CFB market which would not be desired by the universities.

There is a reason why CFB realignment has basically stopped despite all of the baseless speculation that gets thrown around on these boards. It is what it is. Some people just refuse to see the facts for what they are, IMO.

Like I said, I don't know...you don't know...no one actually knows if there's a way around it until it's actually challenged. All GORs across different industries are not the same.

Surprise, surprise. A Big 12/ACC member fan wants to act like they are safe from more defections/raidings. No one knows what the future holds. All you have is your own baseless, bias speculation.

Um.....do you not know what "IMO" stands for? It means "in my opinion" in case you don't know - and I have used it at least seven times in my responses above. Of course, we don't have any assurances either way concerning how a challenge would play out. I do, however, base my OPINION on facts. We DO know that GORs have been enforceable in other industries and the courts would very likely consult those instances. We DO know that schools voluntarily signed the GORs and all of the relevant stipulations. We can readily deduce that a conference with a GOR that challenges another conference with a very similar GOR is, for all intents and purposes, very likely mounting a de-facto challenge to their own GOR as well.

My relevant OPINION was that these facts and circumstances make such a challenge a big risk for a school or raiding conference. Your original statements had no underlying basis whatsoever, save for perhaps a wish or hope on your part. Finally, events in the last few years have sort of supported my OPINION, haven't they? Would you not agree that realignment (i.e, the movement of teams within the P5 conferences) has been pretty much stopped dead in its tracks since the implementation of the GORs in 4 of the 5 P5 conferences?

I don't care if this is a CoogBoog, I'm just glad the term "CoogBoog" exists. Is it much more hilarious than just regular cooging it?

UConn will be part of The ACC. Cincy won't be. Sorry.

(04-09-2015 04:40 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 10:13 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 10:01 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  Who in the world would leave the ACC for the Big 12? They'd have to be out of their mind.

Schools that value football over basketball. Without FSU and Clemson, the ACC is just another mid major conference that's good in basketball.

You could say the exact same thing for the Big 12. Take away OU and Texas, and that league would be worse than the ACC minus FSU/Clemson

Not quite. The ACC sucks in football, outside of FSU. VT's best days are behind them, until they replace Frank Beamer. Clemson is still Clemson. Pitt and Syracuse haven't done anything worth talking about in the 21st century. BC is slowly descending to take Duke former place at the bottom of the conference, etc.

Nobody else in the conference has done anything of note in many years, other than lose big time bowl games.

Just to clear somethings up CoogBoog, is our resident prognosticator who uses a psychic he claims to predict (that's how crazy stuff has become, lot of us on our board get good entertainment or laughs, out of his post), where UH will end up in the musical chairs we all call conference alignment, the OP was saying he's not a CoogBoog. We'll see.

did i fall into a time machine? i feel like the rumors the ACC will be raided have been spread before

(04-09-2015 10:13 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 10:01 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  Who in the world would leave the ACC for the Big 12? They'd have to be out of their mind.

Schools that value football over basketball. Without FSU and Clemson, the ACC is just another mid major conference that's good in basketball.

The next time someone steals your pudding cup at the old folks home, fight back!! You have a cane, use it!!

(04-09-2015 03:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sooooo.....

The ACC is going to protect itself by adding two G5 teams it has rejected over and over and over and the Big 12 is going to solve its problem of being irrelevant outside Texas by adding yet another Texas team that is just another mouth to feed at the money and recruiting trough.


Sounds highly plausible and not at all like desperation

Sounds like you're the one stealing bit's pudding cup at the old folks home.

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Until a GOR is challenged, no one really knows how rock solid it is.

If anyone's gonna take a shot at it, my money's on Delany and the Big Ten.

IMO, the are three things wrong with this statement:

1. GORs are hardly novel. They have been well utilized in other industries for years and have been viewed by the courts as binding and enforceable. If such a challenge were to be made, the courts would likely look to prior application of these instruments in other areas. Not saying that it would be an impossibility, but a conference, and more importantly, individual programs, would be taking huge risks which, IMO, they would be unlikely to take given ramifications of losing in court. In my experience, institutions by their very nature are generally risk averse.

2. What individual programs from other P5 conferences would even be interested? Let's be real here. As mentioned above, if any P5 program, such as from the ACC, was interested in making such a move, they would have done so prior to voluntarily signing the GOR. At the very least, programs would have kept their options open and not signed the document if they had a desire to bolt the conference at some point. Simple logic.

3. Delany is not the "king" of the BiG. He works for, and answers to, the BiG university presidents. See point #1 about institutions and their willingness to accept big risks. IMO, there is even more to this point. Since the BiG also has a GOR, and, as widely reported, these GORs are more or less mirror images of one another, any challenge by the BiG to another Conference's GOR becomes, IMO, a de-facto challenge to THEIR OWN GOR. IMO, one of the benefits which the GORs have ushered into CFB is stability. The proverbial conference "musical chairs" appears over for the for the foreseeable future. As a Uconn fan, I understand that might not be good news, but for the P5, IMO, stability makes networks much more comfortable in doing long-term, big $$ deals with the conferences. An assault on one GOR is an assault on all the GORS which, IMO, creates the kind of uncertainty across all of the CFB market which would not be desired by the universities.

There is a reason why CFB realignment has basically stopped despite all of the baseless speculation that gets thrown around on these boards. It is what it is. Some people just refuse to see the facts for what they are, IMO.

Yep, and you have ZERO idea why that is. Everyone thought CR was over in 2005 after BC joined the ACC, yet CR struck again in 2011. Then everyone said it was over after that round, until the very next year. So to get all sanctimonious and proclaim that people are grasping at straws is at the very least.......grasping at straws.

(04-09-2015 09:31 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 04:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Until a GOR is challenged, no one really knows how rock solid it is.

If anyone's gonna take a shot at it, my money's on Delany and the Big Ten.

IMO, the are three things wrong with this statement:

1. GORs are hardly novel. They have been well utilized in other industries for years and have been viewed by the courts as binding and enforceable. If such a challenge were to be made, the courts would likely look to prior application of these instruments in other areas. Not saying that it would be an impossibility, but a conference, and more importantly, individual programs, would be taking huge risks which, IMO, they would be unlikely to take given ramifications of losing in court. In my experience, institutions by their very nature are generally risk averse.

2. What individual programs from other P5 conferences would even be interested? Let's be real here. As mentioned above, if any P5 program, such as from the ACC, was interested in making such a move, they would have done so prior to voluntarily signing the GOR. At the very least, programs would have kept their options open and not signed the document if they had a desire to bolt the conference at some point. Simple logic.

3. Delany is not the "king" of the BiG. He works for, and answers to, the BiG university presidents. See point #1 about institutions and their willingness to accept big risks. IMO, there is even more to this point. Since the BiG also has a GOR, and, as widely reported, these GORs are more or less mirror images of one another, any challenge by the BiG to another Conference's GOR becomes, IMO, a de-facto challenge to THEIR OWN GOR. IMO, one of the benefits which the GORs have ushered into CFB is stability. The proverbial conference "musical chairs" appears over for the for the foreseeable future. As a Uconn fan, I understand that might not be good news, but for the P5, IMO, stability makes networks much more comfortable in doing long-term, big $$ deals with the conferences. An assault on one GOR is an assault on all the GORS which, IMO, creates the kind of uncertainty across all of the CFB market which would not be desired by the universities.

There is a reason why CFB realignment has basically stopped despite all of the baseless speculation that gets thrown around on these boards. It is what it is. Some people just refuse to see the facts for what they are, IMO.

Yep, and you have ZERO idea why that is. Everyone thought CR was over in 2005 after BC joined the ACC, yet CR struck again in 2011. Then everyone said it was over after that round, until the very next year. So to get all sanctimonious and proclaim that people are grasping at straws is at the very least.......grasping at straws.

Um, a little bit of historical revisionism going on here maybe? NOBODY thought realignment was over after 2011 and 2012. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry seemed to be proclaiming that the ACC was going to be ripped part. There were endless media stories speculating about the next moves to be made in CFB realignment. Then, contrary to the overwhelming popular wisdom at the time, realignment just stopped. What happened? After all, EVERYBODY was predicting more moves to follow. Why didn't the ACC get ripped apart? Oh yes, GORs were adopted in 4 of the 5 P5 conferences. Action and reaction.

Oh, and here is something for you to consider, ALL of the moves that occurred or were announced in the 2011 and 2012 period you cited either occurred prior to the signing of GORs or involved schools from conferences without a GOR. How much P5 realignment has occurred SINCE the GORs were adopted? How many P5 schools that signed a GOR have jumped to another P5 conference? Um, that would be a big fat zero.

It's not rocket science. I realize that this is not the result you want, for obvious reasons; but facts are stubborn things.

(04-09-2015 06:31 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I want to hear from miko's sources before I believe anything.

Totally agree... If Miko isn't the one spreading rumors, no way I'm buying it too.

(04-09-2015 03:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sooooo.....

The ACC is going to protect itself by adding two G5 teams it has rejected over and over and over and the Big 12 is going to solve its problem of being irrelevant outside Texas by adding yet another Texas team that is just another mouth to feed at the money and recruiting trough.


Sounds highly plausible and not at all like desperation

Not happening. The OP should be ashamed at posting this and has been called out by fans on that site.

If TV cared about big metros without P5 schools, they would demand their inclusion. They haven't---- end of this sorry speculation.

Great points about grant of rights Eagle78.

Guys, Let's not confuse saying something is done with it being done for awhile. Most the arguments are not about what will happen in 10/20 years, but will be announced in the next year or two.

In 10 years, it's quite possible we get major moves. The grant of rights will be closer to expiring, new contracts will be coming up all around, their will have been major changes in the economy since the last round of realignment, etc.

Most of these rumors deal with the immediate future though and almost all have nothing to them. From my standpoint, there are very good arguments for why there is little movement at the major level right now and little I have seen to refute them. There being movement in 10 or 15 years doesn't change that fact from being right at this time.

(04-09-2015 04:40 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 10:13 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 10:01 AM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  Who in the world would leave the ACC for the Big 12? They'd have to be out of their mind.

Schools that value football over basketball. Without FSU and Clemson, the ACC is just another mid major conference that's good in basketball.

You could say the exact same thing for the Big 12. Take away OU and Texas, and that league would be worse than the ACC minus FSU/Clemson

The same league that Louisville begged for P5 inclusion? The Big 12 is more than OU and UT. The Big 12 has schools that put acc schools to shame and it will have a solid 10 member vote to add Florida St and Clemson. The rest of the acc won't be invited and should be kicked to the curb.