...if passed of course.


Alex Rose‏ @AlexRoseNews

North Carolina lawmakers file bill that would pull #UNC + #NCState from @theACC if #ACC boycotts the state again after #HB2 fallout. @myfox8

Interesting that NC universities could not extend media rights with a conference before five years after conference boycott ended. Also, restricts revenues earned from conference media rights must go into a escrow account to help pay for future exit fees. That seems to hurt the University.


Anyway, UNC and NC State might be up for grabs in the mid 30's.

http://www.scout.com/college/north-carol...-requested


Sankey Recusal Requested from UNC Case
By Greg Barnes

11:28 AM
The SEC commissioner's potential conflict of interest continues to raise red flags.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – SEC commissioner Greg Sankey’s removal as Committee on Infractions chairman due to a conflict of interest in the University of North Carolina’s prolonged NCAA investigation has been officially requested.
Deborah Crowder, the former AFAM department administrator who was charged in UNC’s third notice of allegations with unethical conduct and violating extra-benefit legislation with regard to anomalous AFAM courses, made the request through her attorney, Elliot Abrams of Cheshire, Parker, Schneider & Bryan, in an April 4 letter to NCAA Vice President of Enforcement Jon Duncan.
The letter cited NCAA bylaw 19.3.4, which states “no member of a hearing panel shall participate in a case if he or she is directly connected with an institution under investigation or if he or she has a personal, professional or institutional affiliation that may create the appearance of partiality.” Abrams indicated Sankey’s role as SEC commissioner created the appearance of partiality, which has been a topic of conversation amongst talking heads in recent months. In February, ESPN basketball analyst Jay Bilas criticized the NCAA for allowing a sitting commissioner to be in charge of the Committee on Infractions.

(04-12-2017 11:05 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Interesting that NC universities could not extend media rights with a conference before five years after conference boycott ended. Also, restricts revenues earned from conference media rights must go into a escrow account to help pay for future exit fees. That seems to hurt the University.


Anyway, UNC and NC State might be up for grabs in the mid 30's.

Up for grabs ONLY if the grabbers complied with North Carolina Law.

(04-12-2017 11:05 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Interesting that NC universities could not extend media rights with a conference before five years after conference boycott ended. Also, restricts revenues earned from conference media rights must go into a escrow account to help pay for future exit fees. That seems to hurt the University.


Anyway, UNC and NC State might be up for grabs in the mid 30's.

If state's challenge GOR's it could be a lot sooner. So far no state has challenged the ability of one of its schools to enter into such. The state however has great legal ground to argue that no institution funded by the state can restrain its ability to generate revenue in such a manner. I'm willing to bet that if put to the test only Privates can enter into such agreements and that States would have the right for each of their entities to recuse themselves from any relationship that might lock them into a rate of return that proved to be less beneficial than another choice.

For instance, let's say that L.S.U. was not in the highest paid conference home. Let's say they were in the ACC instead where they were making a mean revenue total 27 million less than that of the SEC. It might be argued by the State of Louisiana that the GOR they signed with the ACC was a restraint of trade affecting the Taxpayers of Louisiana and that such an agreement could therefore not be recognized as binding by the Louisiana Legislature. Bye bye GOR's for state schools.

Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I think the NC lawmakers are pissed that the ACC pulled events from the state and are looking to discourage it from ever happening again. I think that is the goal rather than looking for an exit for UNC and NC State.

Lance, you think this has a legitimate chance of passing?

(04-12-2017 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I think the NC lawmakers are pissed that the ACC pulled events from the state and are looking to discourage it from ever happening again. I think that is the goal rather than looking for an exit for UNC and NC State.

Lance, you think this has a legitimate chance of passing?

You can fight a legitimate battle over a particular issue, and still use it as a means of accomplishing bigger, yet ancillary, objectives.

You do realize that right now the two state schools of North Carolina will lose out on around $200 million in total revenue by remaining in the ACC over the next decade than they would if they were either in the Big 10 or SEC (where the figure would actually be larger). That chunk of change can go a long way in alleviating some appropriations issues. I'm sure they don't like the boycott, but underlying that issue is the constraint upon the trade of the state as a direct result of ACC membership.

(04-12-2017 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I think the NC lawmakers are pissed that the ACC pulled events from the state and are looking to discourage it from ever happening again. I think that is the goal rather than looking for an exit for UNC and NC State.

Lance, you think this has a legitimate chance of passing?

You can fight a legitimate battle over a particular issue, and still use it as a means of accomplishing bigger, yet ancillary, objectives.

You do realize that right now the two state schools of North Carolina will lose out on around $200 million in total revenue by remaining in the ACC over the next decade than they would if they were either in the Big 10 or SEC (where the figure would actually be larger). That chunk of change can go a long way in alleviating some appropriations issues. I'm sure they don't like the boycott, but underlying that issue is the constraint upon the trade of the state as a direct result of ACC membership.

Sounds like multiple uncorrelated issues coming to head at the same time:
1. Possible UNC death penalty for fake classes
2. State politicians retaliating for NCAA boycott of unpopular state bathroom law
3. State politicians preparing to overturn Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage with another state bill, thus protecting self from further private sector sanctions

(04-12-2017 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I think the NC lawmakers are pissed that the ACC pulled events from the state and are looking to discourage it from ever happening again. I think that is the goal rather than looking for an exit for UNC and NC State.

Lance, you think this has a legitimate chance of passing?

You can fight a legitimate battle over a particular issue, and still use it as a means of accomplishing bigger, yet ancillary, objectives.

You do realize that right now the two state schools of North Carolina will lose out on around $200 million in total revenue by remaining in the ACC over the next decade than they would if they were either in the Big 10 or SEC (where the figure would actually be larger). That chunk of change can go a long way in alleviating some appropriations issues. I'm sure they don't like the boycott, but underlying that issue is the constraint upon the trade of the state as a direct result of ACC membership.

True, but I tend to view politicians as mostly incompetent. I'm not sure I give them enough credit to be thinking that far ahead.

I think if they were primarily interested in moving UNC and NC State out that they would take a more direct approach. This plan leaves the distinct possibility that the ACC will back down and return all their events to the state. If they do that then there's no recourse for challenging the GOR...at least as far as this bill would allow.

Then again, if they think there's no chance the ACC will back down then they've probably got the conference cornered. I doubt it would work that way though. The ACC would be a dead man walking if they allow UNC and NC State to back out. It wouldn't be long before most of the others would be gone too. Good for the schools, but the ACC will basically cease to exist. I highly doubt the league feels that strongly about whatever "principles" they think they're upholding. Same reason the NBA moved the All-Star game this year...they can make just as much money if they host it somewhere else, but they're not about to force the Hornets to leave the state because that would hit them in the pocketbook. It all makes for interesting theater though.

(04-12-2017 01:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I think the NC lawmakers are pissed that the ACC pulled events from the state and are looking to discourage it from ever happening again. I think that is the goal rather than looking for an exit for UNC and NC State.

Lance, you think this has a legitimate chance of passing?

You can fight a legitimate battle over a particular issue, and still use it as a means of accomplishing bigger, yet ancillary, objectives.

You do realize that right now the two state schools of North Carolina will lose out on around $200 million in total revenue by remaining in the ACC over the next decade than they would if they were either in the Big 10 or SEC (where the figure would actually be larger). That chunk of change can go a long way in alleviating some appropriations issues. I'm sure they don't like the boycott, but underlying that issue is the constraint upon the trade of the state as a direct result of ACC membership.

True, but I tend to view politicians as mostly incompetent. I'm not sure I give them enough credit to be thinking that far ahead.

I think if they were primarily interested in moving UNC and NC State out that they would take a more direct approach. This plan leaves the distinct possibility that the ACC will back down and return all their events to the state. If they do that then there's no recourse for challenging the GOR...at least as far as this bill would allow.

Then again, if they think there's no chance the ACC will back down then they've probably got the conference cornered. I doubt it would work that way though. The ACC would be a dead man walking if they allow UNC and NC State to back out. It wouldn't be long before most of the others would be gone too. Good for the schools, but the ACC will basically cease to exist. I highly doubt the league feels that strongly about whatever "principles" they think they're upholding. Same reason the NBA moved the All-Star game this year...they can make just as much money if they host it somewhere else, but they're not about to force the Hornets to leave the state because that would hit them in the pocketbook. It all makes for interesting theater though.

Again, nothing you are saying is in error. I'm merely pointing out that there is a way to piggy back on this to find a loophole (and significant political cover for the school) to find a way to pull out and leave. Everyone knows UNC is the root of the ACC as a conference. They have had everyone's expectations on their back with regards to the health of the ACC. Yet, by staying they are vacating 100's of millions of dollars in rights they could earn elsewhere. The state's citizens are conservative enough to get behind this issue, and the issue provides the kind of alibi that the root of a conference would need to open up the window for opportunities to move. This my friends is precisely what Boren did by demanding expansion, only here it gets tied to the state directly instead of to an issue internal to the conference.

As far as politicians being smart enough to provide that cover, I would say the issue is opportunistic. It's perfect for making an issue over the GOR.

Would it be a disaster or blessing for ESPN? I say it could well be a blessing. It stops the need to develop another network. ESPN can still shelter the properties they want from the ACC in an expanded SEC. And it gives them a chance to unload some properties that aren't as promising to FOX and the Big 10. Virginia, Duke, Florida State, Clemson, and Notre Dame are all easily accommodated.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Texas has threatened to head to the Big 10 if they don't keep their conference. Arguably the Big 12 is in better financial shape than the ACC. Miami, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Virginia Tech would make the Big 12 viable from a standpoint of product and markets. FOX splits that overhead 50/50. ESPN loses nothing and splits the overhead for almost half of the ACC. Maybe if Texas won't move to the ACC then the ACC moves to Texas.

North Carolina, one of the Virginia's, Clemson and Florida State come to the SEC. Notre Dame joins the Big 12 as a partial. They still have access to Florida and Georgia through Tech and Miami. They still have Pitt for New England. They might even get Syracuse.

Is Texas happy? Hell yeah they still have their own conference. Is Oklahoma happy? Yes, they have better schools to play. Is the SEC happy? Absolutely! We get two huge new markets, complete our Southern Footprint, don't have to fool with Texas which makes A&M happy, and we pick up that 2nd Florida school we need and cement the access to the South at North Carolina by taking Clemson. All of this becomes suddenly possible with the breaking of the GOR's.

West Virginia is even happy. They get their old Big East rivals back.

The Big 10 could pick up a pair if they wanted them. Maybe they get Virginia and we get Virginia Tech. Or maybe they get Virginia and Notre Dame, Syracuse and Duke.

There's all kinds of possibilities if somebody like UNC breaks that GOR. But if ESPN holds onto the properties they want and shelters them in the SEC they don't have to have another network. They don't have to pay for more schools. They get their conference with the content and markets they want.

So are there powerful people who might be able to piggyback on this? Um....yeah!

(04-12-2017 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I think the NC lawmakers are pissed that the ACC pulled events from the state and are looking to discourage it from ever happening again. I think that is the goal rather than looking for an exit for UNC and NC State.

Lance, you think this has a legitimate chance of passing?

You can fight a legitimate battle over a particular issue, and still use it as a means of accomplishing bigger, yet ancillary, objectives.

You do realize that right now the two state schools of North Carolina will lose out on around $200 million in total revenue by remaining in the ACC over the next decade than they would if they were either in the Big 10 or SEC (where the figure would actually be larger). That chunk of change can go a long way in alleviating some appropriations issues. I'm sure they don't like the boycott, but underlying that issue is the constraint upon the trade of the state as a direct result of ACC membership.

True, but I tend to view politicians as mostly incompetent. I'm not sure I give them enough credit to be thinking that far ahead.

I think if they were primarily interested in moving UNC and NC State out that they would take a more direct approach. This plan leaves the distinct possibility that the ACC will back down and return all their events to the state. If they do that then there's no recourse for challenging the GOR...at least as far as this bill would allow.

Then again, if they think there's no chance the ACC will back down then they've probably got the conference cornered. I doubt it would work that way though. The ACC would be a dead man walking if they allow UNC and NC State to back out. It wouldn't be long before most of the others would be gone too. Good for the schools, but the ACC will basically cease to exist. I highly doubt the league feels that strongly about whatever "principles" they think they're upholding. Same reason the NBA moved the All-Star game this year...they can make just as much money if they host it somewhere else, but they're not about to force the Hornets to leave the state because that would hit them in the pocketbook. It all makes for interesting theater though.

Again, nothing you are saying is in error. I'm merely pointing out that there is a way to piggy back on this to find a loophole (and significant political cover for the school) to find a way to pull out and leave. Everyone knows UNC is the root of the ACC as a conference. They have had everyone's expectations on their back with regards to the health of the ACC. Yet, by staying they are vacating 100's of millions of dollars in rights they could earn elsewhere. The state's citizens are conservative enough to get behind this issue, and the issue provides the kind of alibi that the root of a conference would need to open up the window for opportunities to move. This my friends is precisely what Boren did by demanding expansion, only here it gets tied to the state directly instead of to an issue internal to the conference.

As far as politicians being smart enough to provide that cover, I would say the issue is opportunistic. It's perfect for making an issue over the GOR.

You could be right.

I suppose it would come down to whose idea this was. If the state politicians are in league with the leadership of UNC and NC State on this then it could be the cover for a move at a later time.

Perhaps this is something that someone just came up with recently. After all, UNC and NC State did sign an extended GOR in exchange for the ACCN. I'm wondering if they did that because they thought they had no other recourse or because they really want to commit to the future of the ACC.

Or perhaps the financial situation is getting a little more desperate and they are now resorting to different tactics.

(04-12-2017 02:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting turn of events.

I think the NC lawmakers are pissed that the ACC pulled events from the state and are looking to discourage it from ever happening again. I think that is the goal rather than looking for an exit for UNC and NC State.

Lance, you think this has a legitimate chance of passing?

You can fight a legitimate battle over a particular issue, and still use it as a means of accomplishing bigger, yet ancillary, objectives.

You do realize that right now the two state schools of North Carolina will lose out on around $200 million in total revenue by remaining in the ACC over the next decade than they would if they were either in the Big 10 or SEC (where the figure would actually be larger). That chunk of change can go a long way in alleviating some appropriations issues. I'm sure they don't like the boycott, but underlying that issue is the constraint upon the trade of the state as a direct result of ACC membership.

True, but I tend to view politicians as mostly incompetent. I'm not sure I give them enough credit to be thinking that far ahead.

I think if they were primarily interested in moving UNC and NC State out that they would take a more direct approach. This plan leaves the distinct possibility that the ACC will back down and return all their events to the state. If they do that then there's no recourse for challenging the GOR...at least as far as this bill would allow.

Then again, if they think there's no chance the ACC will back down then they've probably got the conference cornered. I doubt it would work that way though. The ACC would be a dead man walking if they allow UNC and NC State to back out. It wouldn't be long before most of the others would be gone too. Good for the schools, but the ACC will basically cease to exist. I highly doubt the league feels that strongly about whatever "principles" they think they're upholding. Same reason the NBA moved the All-Star game this year...they can make just as much money if they host it somewhere else, but they're not about to force the Hornets to leave the state because that would hit them in the pocketbook. It all makes for interesting theater though.

Again, nothing you are saying is in error. I'm merely pointing out that there is a way to piggy back on this to find a loophole (and significant political cover for the school) to find a way to pull out and leave. Everyone knows UNC is the root of the ACC as a conference. They have had everyone's expectations on their back with regards to the health of the ACC. Yet, by staying they are vacating 100's of millions of dollars in rights they could earn elsewhere. The state's citizens are conservative enough to get behind this issue, and the issue provides the kind of alibi that the root of a conference would need to open up the window for opportunities to move. This my friends is precisely what Boren did by demanding expansion, only here it gets tied to the state directly instead of to an issue internal to the conference.

As far as politicians being smart enough to provide that cover, I would say the issue is opportunistic. It's perfect for making an issue over the GOR.

You could be right.

I suppose it would come down to whose idea this was. If the state politicians are in league with the leadership of UNC and NC State on this then it could be the cover for a move at a later time.

Perhaps this is something that someone just came up with recently. After all, UNC and NC State did sign an extended GOR in exchange for the ACCN. I'm wondering if they did that because they thought they had no other recourse or because they really want to commit to the future of the ACC.

Or perhaps the financial situation is getting a little more desperate and they are now resorting to different tactics.

I've been on record in the past saying that the ACC was a parking lot of properties that ESPN would like to use to acquire what they wanted later.

What's the biggest issue with dividing the Big 12? Some current P5 are bound to be left out. But, what if we decided to parse the ACC and to use a legal way out of the GOR (States rights and restraint of trade) as a legal means by which to do it? Likely we still have one or two left out (Wake Forest and possibly B.C.). But look what ESPN gains by doing so:

1 Texas stays in the Big 12 and converts the LHN into a Big 12N. ESPN acquires the cable rights to the Big 12 giving them a leg up on FOX while FOX if it still wanted that T1 & T2 content would still have to pay 50% of those TV rights which gives ESPN an economic boost.
s
2. Nobody has to worry about O.S.U., K.S.U. or I.S.U. getting left out and all are better fits for the P5 than Wake.

3. B.Y.U. finds a home without upsetting the number in the P5.

4. The SEC lands the two most SEC like schools both which boost content (Florida State and Clemson). The SEC lands a North Carolina and Virginia school.

5. Since ESPN would own the largest % of SEC rights North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and another could join FSU and Clemson to take us to 20 in a super content conference with a super content SECN that is already paid for and operational. And all of these schools have done the upgrades necessary to be part of that conference at no additional cost.

6. Games stay regional.

7. While I'm being serious about the impact such a decision could create, It's also the slow time and the speculation is welcomed.

Reading the proposed law though, doesn't look like this is a challenge to the GOR as it stipulates the law is enforced only after the current media rights contract has expired. At least, that is the way I read the first paragraph. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think they would have to go for a more direct assault on the GOR before this could mean the break-up of the ACC in the near future.

(04-12-2017 03:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading the proposed law though, doesn't look like this is a challenge to the GOR as it stipulates the law is enforced only after the current media rights contract has expired. At least, that is the way I read the first paragraph. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think they would have to go for a more direct assault on the GOR before this could mean the break-up of the ACC in the near future.

Well my point is that the case as it is represents a grievance against restraint of trade imposed by the athletic conference. It doesn't take a big leap should that be established to make the same claim with direct regard to the GOR, which I have never believed would ultimately be binding upon a school that is funded by the State. If it was pushed this bill could be used to establish that an athletic conference cannot impose a restraint of trade to any sovereign state. Once that is established what the heck do you think a GOR is? It restrains the member schools, some of which are state funded, from being free to maximize their revenue. Therefore, yet again, an athletic conference is imposing restrictions upon a sovereign state that inhibits its schools from maximizing revenue which by definition is a restraint of trade.

If schools were required to sign in order to remain that is yet another issue. If they signed in error while thinking they were free to do so that is an issue first between the state and school in which it might be ruled that the school did not have the authority of the state legislature to make such a commitment. Now we have a no fault way out of the GOR.

(04-12-2017 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 03:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading the proposed law though, doesn't look like this is a challenge to the GOR as it stipulates the law is enforced only after the current media rights contract has expired. At least, that is the way I read the first paragraph. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think they would have to go for a more direct assault on the GOR before this could mean the break-up of the ACC in the near future.

Well my point is that the case as it is represents a grievance against restraint of trade imposed by the athletic conference. It doesn't take a big leap should that be established to make the same claim with direct regard to the GOR, which I have never believed would ultimately be binding upon a school that is funded by the State. If it was pushed this bill could be used to establish that an athletic conference cannot impose a restraint of trade to any sovereign state. Once that is established what the heck do you think a GOR is? It restrains the member schools, some of which are state funded, from being free to maximize their revenue. Therefore, yet again, an athletic conference is imposing restrictions upon a sovereign state that inhibits its schools from maximizing revenue which by definition is a restraint of trade.

You're absolutely right about that.

I'm just wondering if the target is the GOR or a buffer against further action by the ACC.

Here's an interesting article from ESPN: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...otts-state

(04-12-2017 03:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 03:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading the proposed law though, doesn't look like this is a challenge to the GOR as it stipulates the law is enforced only after the current media rights contract has expired. At least, that is the way I read the first paragraph. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think they would have to go for a more direct assault on the GOR before this could mean the break-up of the ACC in the near future.

Well my point is that the case as it is represents a grievance against restraint of trade imposed by the athletic conference. It doesn't take a big leap should that be established to make the same claim with direct regard to the GOR, which I have never believed would ultimately be binding upon a school that is funded by the State. If it was pushed this bill could be used to establish that an athletic conference cannot impose a restraint of trade to any sovereign state. Once that is established what the heck do you think a GOR is? It restrains the member schools, some of which are state funded, from being free to maximize their revenue. Therefore, yet again, an athletic conference is imposing restrictions upon a sovereign state that inhibits its schools from maximizing revenue which by definition is a restraint of trade.

You're absolutely right about that.

I'm just wondering if the target is the GOR or a buffer against further action by the ACC.

Here's an interesting article from ESPN: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...otts-state

Yes, it's against further action by the ACC. But if the ACC admits they didn't have the right to impose the boycott that too opens up questions pertaining to the GOR. As an athletic conference they can negotiate contracts for member schools. They can schedule. They can hire officials. They can impose rules for participation in athletics and other aspects of that. I don't think they cant legally tell a school that you can't leave because of our TV contract if that school is a state school. Why? Because now you have an entity essentially foreign to the needs of the state telling a state funded institution what it may or may not do with regards to their own economic future. Of course the question becomes who is the legally qualified agent of the state that can enter into contractual obligations? Is it the trustees of the school? The administration of the school? Or, is it the state itself? Each school had to sign the agreement. Is the one who signed legally an agent of the State? Can their authority supersede the desires of the legislature when it comes to revenue and appropriations? And furthermore can they sign away the rights of the state to pursue greater revenue which lessens the burden upon the citizens of that state?

A few other things to consider here...

1. NC has already repealed the bathroom law so they're obviously not going to retroactively leave over the first boycott. Are they expecting another boycott...something Murr alluded to in an earlier post?

2. The bill provides for an escrow account to be created where conference revenues would be sheltered to pay for exit fees. That's an interesting concept. A legal form of money laundering? Move the money around so the ACC can't get to it?

(04-12-2017 03:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 03:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading the proposed law though, doesn't look like this is a challenge to the GOR as it stipulates the law is enforced only after the current media rights contract has expired. At least, that is the way I read the first paragraph. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think they would have to go for a more direct assault on the GOR before this could mean the break-up of the ACC in the near future.

Well my point is that the case as it is represents a grievance against restraint of trade imposed by the athletic conference. It doesn't take a big leap should that be established to make the same claim with direct regard to the GOR, which I have never believed would ultimately be binding upon a school that is funded by the State. If it was pushed this bill could be used to establish that an athletic conference cannot impose a restraint of trade to any sovereign state. Once that is established what the heck do you think a GOR is? It restrains the member schools, some of which are state funded, from being free to maximize their revenue. Therefore, yet again, an athletic conference is imposing restrictions upon a sovereign state that inhibits its schools from maximizing revenue which by definition is a restraint of trade.

You're absolutely right about that.

I'm just wondering if the target is the GOR or a buffer against further action by the ACC.

Here's an interesting article from ESPN: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...otts-state

Target is ACC boycotting of the state of North Carolina
The buffer is UNC and NC State have options outside the ACC if things get to that point.

Remember the Belk Bowl. Sankey did not pull SEC participation from that North Carolina event for some reason even when everybody else was at that public time.

[/quote]
I've been on record in the past saying that the ACC was a parking lot of properties that ESPN would like to use to acquire what they wanted later.

What's the biggest issue with dividing the Big 12? Some current P5 are bound to be left out. But, what if we decided to parse the ACC and to use a legal way out of the GOR (States rights and restraint of trade) as a legal means by which to do it? Likely we still have one or two left out (Wake Forest and possibly B.C.). But look what ESPN gains by doing so:

1 Texas stays in the Big 12 and converts the LHN into a Big 12N. ESPN acquires the cable rights to the Big 12 giving them a leg up on FOX while FOX if it still wanted that T1 & T2 content would still have to pay 50% of those TV rights which gives ESPN an economic boost.
s
2. Nobody has to worry about O.S.U., K.S.U. or I.S.U. getting left out and all are better fits for the P5 than Wake.

3. B.Y.U. finds a home without upsetting the number in the P5.

4. The SEC lands the two most SEC like schools both which boost content (Florida State and Clemson). The SEC lands a North Carolina and Virginia school.

5. Since ESPN would own the largest % of SEC rights North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and another could join FSU and Clemson to take us to 20 in a super content conference with a super content SECN that is already paid for and operational. And all of these schools have done the upgrades necessary to be part of that conference at no additional cost.

6. Games stay regional.

7. While I'm being serious about the impact such a decision could create, It's also the slow time and the speculation is welcomed.
[/quote]

Interesting thought. Here is pure speculation:

Even a revamped Big 12 with ACC parts in that scenario would not get as much money as the SEC, the numbers just grow bigger all around.

In this scenario the SEC gets Clemson, FSU, a NC school and a VA school (say NC State/VTech).

Assuming the Big 10 takes from the AAU schools (Pitt, UNC/Duke, Virginia, GT), that leaves Boston College, Syracuse, Wake, Louisville, Miami, and ? that the Big 10/SEC did not take.

Not sure Boston College or Syracuse are great fits in the Big 12. So Big 12 would take Louisville, Miami and say Pitt (though it could be GT). They also at that point are able to add Arizona St/Arizona because the $ will be that much better. To make an even 16 they take BYU.

Question will be if new Big 12 makes enough money versus the new SEC and Big 10. My guess money gets bigger for everyone, but SEC/Big 10 is still ahead, meaning schools like OK/OK State may still have wandering eyes, in which case, things haven't really changed that much, with one exception:

PAC is back to 10 and we are closer to a big 2 than ever before. Texas more likely to go to Big 10, especially if there is a PAC/Big 10 merge of some sort that allows Tech to come along.

(04-12-2017 03:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Remember the Belk Bowl. Sankey did not pull SEC participation from that North Carolina event for some reason even when everybody else was at that public time.

Very good point.

BTW, I just checked out the Dude's Twitter feed. He says UNC isn't going anywhere which means this whole thing is probably leading to an epic conference realignment meltdown...