(04-09-2015 11:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  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.

The big 12 is breaking apart. It may happen at the end of the GoR or it may happen much sooner.

If it happens after the GoR expires then it is going to be rather cutthroat. Sink or swim, survive on your own kind of negotiating. Ten years can be saved though and that Time, which is the most valuable commodity, will be worth some massive contract improvements.

If everyone plays along then everyone gets what they want now rather than 10 years from now. I could go further with details but I'm not really addressing this to you with the thought of changing your mind. Just offering up opposing argument because I think you are wrong.

(04-10-2015 12:12 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 11:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  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.

The big 12 is breaking apart. It may happen at the end of the GoR or it may happen much sooner.

If it happens after the GoR expires then it is going to be rather cutthroat. Sink or swim, survive on your own kind of negotiating. Ten years can be saved though and that Time, which is the most valuable commodity, will be worth some massive contract improvements.

If everyone plays along then everyone gets what they want now rather than 10 years from now. I could go further with details but I'm not really addressing this to you with the thought of changing your mind. Just offering up opposing argument because I think you are wrong.

I get it that this is what you believe. That said, you have provided no basis for this position. I have offered a number of reasons why I believe the GORs have stopped realignment for now. I agree with Ohio's point that as they come close to expiration, realignment COULD flare up again. Of course, 10 years is an eternity and a whole bunch of things can and/or will occur during this time which could affect this whole process one way or another.

My limited point is that, contrary to all of the so-called prevailing wisdom hat has been thrown around on thus subject, realignment has been virtually shut down since the GORs were adopted. This is no accident, IMO.

The other lawsuit material is what it takes to dissolve the big 12 and does that end the GOR? i've read anywhere from 6 to 8 to dissolve.

(04-10-2015 09:52 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The other lawsuit material is what it takes to dissolve the big 12 and does that end the GOR? i've read anywhere from 6 to 8 to dissolve.

I would think the number would be either 7 or 8. Either 2/3 needed(which would be 7) or 3/4 needed(which would be 8).

I've read the big 12 is a delaware corporation and its only a majority, 6, to dissolve a corp in delaware. Lawyers will be lawyers so i'm sure whoever left out sue.

looks like it's a super majority:
http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdf...Bylaws.pdf
(b) The following actions may be taken only if approved by the affirmative vote of a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors (as defined below):
(2) The dissolution, liquidation, winding-up, merger, sale, or transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of the Conference;

and this:
(f) The term “Supermajority of Disinterested Directors” with respect to any issue shall mean seventy-five percent (75%) or more of all persons who are Disinterested Directors with respect to such issue, whether or not each is Present at a meeting considering such issue or signs a written consent with respect to such issue.

So it would take 8 to dissolve.

GOR makes any p5 league raid unlikely but if the B1G pulled off a raid I do think teams would at minimum consider options.

The teams left over in a raided P5 would use their own value and a truckload of exit fees to rebuild as best they can.

(04-10-2015 10:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  looks like it's a super majority:
http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdf...Bylaws.pdf
(b) The following actions may be taken only if approved by the affirmative vote of a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors (as defined below):
(2) The dissolution, liquidation, winding-up, merger, sale, or transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of the Conference;

and this:
(f) The term “Supermajority of Disinterested Directors” with respect to any issue shall mean seventy-five percent (75%) or more of all persons who are Disinterested Directors with respect to such issue, whether or not each is Present at a meeting considering such issue or signs a written consent with respect to such issue.

So it would take 8 to dissolve.

Yes, 75% is the rule and has been reported since 2010 on it.

(04-09-2015 09:22 PM)DefCONNOne 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.

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

I have 2 canes, and I'm not afraid to use them.

(04-09-2015 09:59 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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.

I know you desperately cling to the notion that everyone didn't think CR was over after 2011, but those facts you like to throw in my face say otherwise. I know you can't accept the fact that a certain unnamed school will, and I do mean WILL, get the callup to a P5 conference. But, using conjecture and slight-of-hand will not make CR, and that certain unnamed school, go away.

I have reason to believe that the P5 will actually shrink in number, say to 60.
How to treat those 5 "others" has yet to be decided.

(04-10-2015 12:12 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 11:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  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.

The big 12 is breaking apart. It may happen at the end of the GoR or it may happen much sooner.

If it happens after the GoR expires then it is going to be rather cutthroat. Sink or swim, survive on your own kind of negotiating. Ten years can be saved though and that Time, which is the most valuable commodity, will be worth some massive contract improvements.

If everyone plays along then everyone gets what they want now rather than 10 years from now. I could go further with details but I'm not really addressing this to you with the thought of changing your mind. Just offering up opposing argument because I think you are wrong.

Yeah I don't think either one of us will convince the other as we've been down that route before.

I'll grant that you are correct that the least bloody way to do it is right now if you are talking about going down to 4 major conferences. If you had the other conferences agree to take all/virtually all the Big 12 members, you could get massive realignment now.

I think our biggest differences is our belief in the desirablity of that. I don't think anyone beside the conference that got Texas would like that and cooperate and it would take all 4 conferences on board.

(04-10-2015 12:03 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(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.

Look, I am far from an ACC fan. But.....

Why didn't that powerful 10 school voting bloc snag FSU and Clemson in the 2010-12 time span prior to the signing of the ACC grant of rights?

The ACC was far easier to "rip apart" in 2010-2012 than after the inclusion of Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and ND, the adoption of the $52 million exit fee and the signing of the GOR.

The Big 12 missed its chance, if it even ever existed.

(04-10-2015 11:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:03 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(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.

Look, I am far from an ACC fan. But.....

Why didn't that powerful 10 school voting bloc snag FSU and Clemson in the 2010-12 time span prior to the signing of the ACC grant of rights?

The ACC was far easier to "rip apart" in 2010-2012 than prior to the inclusion of Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and ND, the adoption of the $52 million exit fee and the signing of the GOR.

The Big 12 missed its chance, if it even ever existed.

at the time everything was going on the ACC had just landed a new TV deal and the Big 12 had not yet had their first tier TV deal renegotiated several years early

ADs of major teams were concerned with the ACC making less money in the future, but with a new TV deal for the ACC in place and the Big 12 still not having an commissioner that could convince others that they would get their first tier deal renegotiated early (much less get any boost to a second tier deal that was signed with 10 teams that included A&M and MU at the time) it was not as easy to convince others to jump ship

if all things had gone according to plan the Big 10 would have taken MU and possibly a couple of teams from the ACC and they would have been happy and the Big 12 would have had an easier chance to back fill with ACC teams and they would have been happy

instead the AD from MU ran his big mouth and and NU got wind of it

then NU started to let the Big 12 know they were looking around and word got out and the ACC started to react and that started to make it harder for the Big 10 to make a move on ACC schools......this is why the Big 10 ended up telling MU "thanks, but no thanks" and MU had to go to the SEC

while the Big 12 knew change was going to happen they and the Big 10 were not prepared for the ACC to move so quick and for the Big East to be even less prepared to not get fully pulled apart and for the ACC to get a deal worked so quick that would satisfy the major football schools

(04-10-2015 11:51 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:03 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

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

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

Look, I am far from an ACC fan. But.....

Why didn't that powerful 10 school voting bloc snag FSU and Clemson in the 2010-12 time span prior to the signing of the ACC grant of rights?

The ACC was far easier to "rip apart" in 2010-2012 than prior to the inclusion of Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and ND, the adoption of the $52 million exit fee and the signing of the GOR.

The Big 12 missed its chance, if it even ever existed.

at the time everything was going on the ACC had just landed a new TV deal and the Big 12 had not yet had their first tier TV deal renegotiated several years early

ADs of major teams were concerned with the ACC making less money in the future, but with a new TV deal for the ACC in place and the Big 12 still not having an commissioner that could convince others that they would get their first tier deal renegotiated early (much less get any boost to a second tier deal that was signed with 10 teams that included A&M and MU at the time) it was not as easy to convince others to jump ship

if all things had gone according to plan the Big 10 would have taken MU and possibly a couple of teams from the ACC and they would have been happy and the Big 12 would have had an easier chance to back fill with ACC teams and they would have been happy

instead the AD from MU ran his big mouth and and NU got wind of it

then NU started to let the Big 12 know they were looking around and word got out and the ACC started to react and that started to make it harder for the Big 10 to make a move on ACC schools......this is why the Big 10 ended up telling MU "thanks, but no thanks" and MU had to go to the SEC

while the Big 12 knew change was going to happen they and the Big 10 were not prepared for the ACC to move so quick and for the Big East to be even less prepared to not get fully pulled apart and for the ACC to get a deal worked so quick that would satisfy the major football schools

In other words:

The Big 12 was a huge Charlie Fox Trot and all of these "plans" were nothing but big dreams and hot air that came to naught.

(04-10-2015 11:05 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 09:59 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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.

I know you desperately cling to the notion that everyone didn't think CR was over after 2011, but those facts you like to throw in my face say otherwise. I know you can't accept the fact that a certain unnamed school will, and I do mean WILL, get the callup to a P5 conference. But, using conjecture and slight-of-hand will not make CR, and that certain unnamed school, go away.

Must I really link all the articles and blogs from that time period which inferred that conference realignment was far from over? OK, how about I link just one for starters...from that obscure (sarcasm intended) media outlet known as the New York Times. Perhaps you have heard of them?:

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09...haos/?_r=0

I call your attention to one of the quotes in the article:

"The only conferences that can feel completely secure are the Big Ten and the SEC."

I do believe that this blog article has frequently been linked in these threads.

To your main point, I don't "desperately cling" to anything. The facts are on my side; and the fact is that realignment came to a screeching halt once the GORs were put in place. That's not really open for debate. I opined that this will continue for the foreseeable future due to the GORs being in place. Most importantly, I provided a rationale for why the GORs have been effective.

You, on the other hand, have provided no rationale whatsoever to dispute my points. As I said before, I get why you feel that way. But, frankly IMO, you voice more of a hope rather than having any substance to substantiate your position. If you do have a rationale for your viewpoint, I would welcome the chance to debate it with you.

Oh, and one final point, I could care less whether or not that "unnamed school", as you put it, gets into the P5 or not. As a BC grad and life long BC fan/season ticket holder, I am much more concerned about the progress of our FB program than I am about other schools. I can also tell you that, whether you want to believe it or not, most of us BC fans have many other issue and concerns. That "unnanmed school" is very far down our list.

My whole thesis here has been why I think the GORs have been very effective instruments in stabilizing CFB, that's it.

Dude, you seem a bit angry. We are talking ideas and opinions here. None of this should be taken personally.

I see a lot of contradiction in the ideas that the ACC has a poor deal with ESPN that will give them less revenue than other conferences AND the ACC is at risk of getting raided by a conference like the B12.

If the ACC's contract is bad for them, that means it is good for ESPN and ESPN would want it to stay in effect. What conference moves so far have happened against ESPN's interests?

It is more likely that the ESPN deal with the ACC, along with ESPN's ability to control Texas' fate because of the Longhorn Network deal, could lead to ESPN orchestrating a breakup of the B12 in order to insure the ACC survives the next round of expansion.

I don't think any real P5 realignment will take place for ten years, if then.

I know that various gurus and insiders have all of these different theories and ideas, but I have mine.

Carry on.

(04-10-2015 12:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:51 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:03 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

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

Look, I am far from an ACC fan. But.....

Why didn't that powerful 10 school voting bloc snag FSU and Clemson in the 2010-12 time span prior to the signing of the ACC grant of rights?

The ACC was far easier to "rip apart" in 2010-2012 than prior to the inclusion of Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and ND, the adoption of the $52 million exit fee and the signing of the GOR.

The Big 12 missed its chance, if it even ever existed.

at the time everything was going on the ACC had just landed a new TV deal and the Big 12 had not yet had their first tier TV deal renegotiated several years early

ADs of major teams were concerned with the ACC making less money in the future, but with a new TV deal for the ACC in place and the Big 12 still not having an commissioner that could convince others that they would get their first tier deal renegotiated early (much less get any boost to a second tier deal that was signed with 10 teams that included A&M and MU at the time) it was not as easy to convince others to jump ship

if all things had gone according to plan the Big 10 would have taken MU and possibly a couple of teams from the ACC and they would have been happy and the Big 12 would have had an easier chance to back fill with ACC teams and they would have been happy

instead the AD from MU ran his big mouth and and NU got wind of it

then NU started to let the Big 12 know they were looking around and word got out and the ACC started to react and that started to make it harder for the Big 10 to make a move on ACC schools......this is why the Big 10 ended up telling MU "thanks, but no thanks" and MU had to go to the SEC

while the Big 12 knew change was going to happen they and the Big 10 were not prepared for the ACC to move so quick and for the Big East to be even less prepared to not get fully pulled apart and for the ACC to get a deal worked so quick that would satisfy the major football schools

In other words:

The Big 12 was a huge Charlie Fox Trot and all of these "plans" were nothing but big dreams and hot air that came to naught.

programs like FSU do not have "issues" go public and major PUBLIC discussions with ADs commenting and major alumni commenting publicly based on hot air and "nothing to see here"

when the chairman of the BOT is on record saying he would like to explore options that is not hot air

https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1364755

when the head coach is on record saying they would be open to a move that is not hot air

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...r-acc-s-tv

it seems only the FSU president was not on board with looking around or considering a move and that is why it did not go further

but again when two major players at a university including the chairman of the BOT go on record for an interview and state without question they have issues and are open to other options that is far from hot air

(04-10-2015 01:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:51 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:03 AM)RaiderRed Wrote:  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.

Look, I am far from an ACC fan. But.....

Why didn't that powerful 10 school voting bloc snag FSU and Clemson in the 2010-12 time span prior to the signing of the ACC grant of rights?

The ACC was far easier to "rip apart" in 2010-2012 than prior to the inclusion of Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and ND, the adoption of the $52 million exit fee and the signing of the GOR.

The Big 12 missed its chance, if it even ever existed.

at the time everything was going on the ACC had just landed a new TV deal and the Big 12 had not yet had their first tier TV deal renegotiated several years early

ADs of major teams were concerned with the ACC making less money in the future, but with a new TV deal for the ACC in place and the Big 12 still not having an commissioner that could convince others that they would get their first tier deal renegotiated early (much less get any boost to a second tier deal that was signed with 10 teams that included A&M and MU at the time) it was not as easy to convince others to jump ship

if all things had gone according to plan the Big 10 would have taken MU and possibly a couple of teams from the ACC and they would have been happy and the Big 12 would have had an easier chance to back fill with ACC teams and they would have been happy

instead the AD from MU ran his big mouth and and NU got wind of it

then NU started to let the Big 12 know they were looking around and word got out and the ACC started to react and that started to make it harder for the Big 10 to make a move on ACC schools......this is why the Big 10 ended up telling MU "thanks, but no thanks" and MU had to go to the SEC

while the Big 12 knew change was going to happen they and the Big 10 were not prepared for the ACC to move so quick and for the Big East to be even less prepared to not get fully pulled apart and for the ACC to get a deal worked so quick that would satisfy the major football schools

In other words:

The Big 12 was a huge Charlie Fox Trot and all of these "plans" were nothing but big dreams and hot air that came to naught.

programs like FSU do not have "issues" go public and major PUBLIC discussions with ADs commenting and major alumni commenting publicly based on hot air and "nothing to see here"

when the chairman of the BOT is on record saying he would like to explore options that is not hot air

https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1364755

when the head coach is on record saying they would be open to a move that is not hot air

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...r-acc-s-tv

it seems only the FSU president was not on board with looking around or considering a move and that is why it did not go further

but again when two major players at a university including the chairman of the BOT go on record for an interview and state without question they have issues and are open to other options that is far from hot air

Yeah, but in the end, FSU committed to the ACC and signed the GOR, didn't they? So whether or not the talk was "hot air", the end result was the same, wasn't it?