(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:16 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:07 AM)ken d Wrote:  Unless the SEC is willing to take them all, I can't imagine ESPN allowing some to go the Big Ten without an expensive protracted legal battle. The legal fight isn't just an intramural affair between ACC schools.

It won't be a legal battle. If this is true (the Secret 7)...it might be nothing more than holding up the stick to the lower value schools. Are you sure you don't want the carrot? The vice ever-tightening until all parties want change.

The basest form of entertainment is the propagation of pity or fear. This will be entertaining. Pity for the 8 which may be against, fear created by the 7 who want out.

It's high noon. Who takes the bullet? Have all the women and children left except for Grace Kelly?

What will ESPN do? Did ESPN secretly give assent?

In my opinion the only thing that happens is that the battle lines are defined. Those wanting out, or concessions, will become known, and those wanting status quo will be outed as well. This move simply gets the argument out in the open. From there ESPN can play a more active role.

Getting all of the egos and opinions into the room, letting them vent, and then brainstorming for potential solutions is a process which can't begin until everyone owns their position.

This is the beginning of a process towards a resolution whether that is changing distribution calculations (which I don't see working because there is no new money and some will get partially wealthier while others get poorer, and their own internal gap will grow) or dissolution, or merger, or something else entirely, or possibly the most dismal outcome, nothing.

Right now the ACC is about to have what it hasn't had since July of last year, everyone's attention. And that is not necessarily bad for them. They've been lost in the shuffle for two years now. Even bad publicity is good for visibility.

bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

Even if the votes for dissolution are there, once again, it's not clear whether that actually dissolves the Grant of Rights agreement itself and/or still doesn't entitle everyone that is damaged (the "Left Behind 7" - I'm not including ND in this at all) to the same recourse that they would have received if there was a straight breach of the GOR agreement.

I wish people would really internalize the legal arguments for and against the GOR. For one, I have been clear for the past decade-plus that it's NOT about the GOR being "iron clad" that makes it a difficult legal issue. Instead, what makes the GOR dangerous is that absolutely no one has any clear view as whether an argument against the GOR will actually work (including outright dissolving the league). That has always been the dilemma. It's a FINANCIAL issue, NOT a legal issue. If you lose, there's hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, which even the richest schools simply can't risk losing.

ND or UT could lose it, probably tOSU, bama and A&M too. The way I would say that is "it would be stupid to risk that money for any school for the relative pittance of $20-30m a year for a decade". That's one of the strongest arguments against some sort of secret anti-ACC cabal, they have too much to lose and not enough to gain.

If the GoR had 100 years left, or 5 years left, then things would be much more interesting to me. As it is, we're kind of in an ugly limbo in which the P2 are still digesting our last meals and the money available for media rights is getting sucked up by the NBA for the next couple years. 2027 would make a LOT more sense from a media rights perspective, no new NFL or NBA contracts on the horizon, the new CFP is done and rolling, but it's still a few years away for the B1G renewal, too. As things stand today, right now, I'm not convinced that the ACC on the open market would get as good of a deal as they have right now on their allegedly horrible deal.

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

(05-15-2023 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The basest form of entertainment is the propagation of pity or fear. This will be entertaining. Pity for the 8 which may be against, fear created by the 7 who want out.

It's high noon. Who takes the bullet? Have all the women and children left except for Grace Kelly?

What will ESPN do? Did ESPN secretly give assent?

In my opinion the only thing that happens is that the battle lines are defined. Those wanting out, or concessions, will become known, and those wanting status quo will be outed as well. This move simply gets the argument out in the open. From there ESPN can play a more active role.

Getting all of the egos and opinions into the room, letting them vent, and then brainstorming for potential solutions is a process which can't begin until everyone owns their position.

This is the beginning of a process towards a resolution whether that is changing distribution calculations (which I don't see working because there is no new money and some will get partially wealthier while others get poorer, and their own internal gap will grow) or dissolution, or merger, or something else entirely, or possibly the most dismal outcome, nothing.

Right now the ACC is about to have what it hasn't had since July of last year, everyone's attention. And that is not necessarily bad for them. They've been lost in the shuffle for two years now. Even bad publicity is good for visibility.

bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

To get a 5 game deal with the SEC, your T1 rights purchased by ESPN for 75 million, and to keep your independence, while escaping the ACC, it's vulnerabilities, and to obtain better match ups for money and overflow games in South Bend. Anything else?

That would actually be a pretty sweet gig for ND. SEC credibility, SEC competition, SEC money, but still "independent" in football. And they'd be able to keep everything else in the BE or Conference 3 perhaps. The B1G wouldn't like it, though even for them it would be a whole lot better than ND fully joining the SEC, too.

(05-15-2023 12:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

To get a 5 game deal with the SEC, your T1 rights purchased by ESPN for 75 million, and to keep your independence, while escaping the ACC, it's vulnerabilities, and to obtain better match ups for money and overflow games in South Bend. Anything else?

It's moments like this where I think the Big10 is just remiss if they aren't already in talks with ND...

She's already told you "no" 27 times. It's not her, it's you.

(05-15-2023 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

We're just adding to Swarbrick's Money Perch with speculation like this. The best part is that it makes perfect sense. I'm sure that he'd rather stick with NBC, but for $75m it would be hard to pass up an ESPN/SEC alliance.

(05-15-2023 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

Yep. When Mr Dellenger calls the ACC a 'fourteen-member conference,' it's not because he forgot ND has a stake in all this. It's because ND prefers the focus to be on the in-for-football 14.

(05-15-2023 12:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

We're just adding to Swarbrick's Money Perch with speculation like this. The best part is that it makes perfect sense. I'm sure that he'd rather stick with NBC, but for $75m it would be hard to pass up an ESPN/SEC alliance.

ND money perch, like the sound of that. Much better sounding then the ASU or Arizona money perch. Maybe nickname it the Catholic perch (no Jesuits I am sorry, looking at you BC.).

(05-15-2023 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

ND could certainly end up voting to dissolve the ACC at the end and it wouldn't shock me that they'd want the same non-football membership deal with a new split-off conference. However, I don't think ND has much or any interest in *proactively* doing this unless it's forced. Remember the Big East timeline: ND still didn't leave for their ACC deal until after Syracuse and Pitt left. As long ND is an independent in football and their non-football sports are in a power league, then they want stability. It's when either or both of those items are threatened that they'll move, but not until that point.

(05-15-2023 12:40 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

Yep. When Mr Dellenger calls the ACC a 'fourteen-member conference,' it's not because he forgot ND has a stake in all this. It's because ND prefers the focus to be on the in-for-football 14.

I think referencing 14 instead of 15 was a mistake. The ACC is a 15 member conference, one of them is just an independent in football. And even then, 5 games a year is really a hybrid between a "scheduling alliance" and "full membership". ND gets their cake and gets to eat it, too, with their ACC gig, but any seismic shakeups with the ACC would involve them as much as the rest.

I wonder if that "14" reference was a direct quote from Dellinger's source (aka FSU). I bet it was. 7/14 seems a lot more threatening as it's 50%, and, again, FSU has every reason to try to destabilize the Conference.

If I'm BC or Syracuse, I'd start building a case against FSU in order to eventually push to completely remove their Conference voting rights. I doubt they'd be successful, but even the threat of that, much like the threat of "we're gonna sue", might give everyone a chance to pause for reflection. Phillips' solution to disruptors is committee meetings and discussions, mine is more along the lines of "threaten them with punishment".

(05-15-2023 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

We're just adding to Swarbrick's Money Perch with speculation like this. The best part is that it makes perfect sense. I'm sure that he'd rather stick with NBC, but for $75m it would be hard to pass up an ESPN/SEC alliance.

ND money perch, like the sound of that. Much better sounding then the ASU or Arizona money perch. Maybe nickname it the Catholic perch (no Jesuits I am sorry, looking at you BC.).

You have a better one than Disney World. It's called the Vatican. So you have a Pope Perch in the Vatican! I'm just glad Guido Sarducci didn't have to do his sketch as, "Finda the perch in the Pizza!"

(05-15-2023 12:46 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

Uh, No! Swarbrick would have his vote ready, but would say absolutely nothing until he had his financial future in hand, not signed, but in hand. Notre Dame not being mentioned by Dellenger or anyone else is S.O.P. for the Irish under Swarbrick. You heard zilch before they signed the partial with the ACC. You'll hear zilch before they make their next move. It will be stealthier than Texas's move because there will be fewer moving parts.

We're just adding to Swarbrick's Money Perch with speculation like this. The best part is that it makes perfect sense. I'm sure that he'd rather stick with NBC, but for $75m it would be hard to pass up an ESPN/SEC alliance.

ND money perch, like the sound of that. Much better sounding then the ASU or Arizona money perch. Maybe nickname it the Catholic perch (no Jesuits I am sorry, looking at you BC.).

If Flugaur dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow, we'd still have his fun and interesting turns of phrase. He's a treasure!

I 2nd the Catholic Perch idea.

(05-15-2023 10:27 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Who wins?

And by win, I think most level-headed folks would agree that an outcome that frees FSU, Clemson and their five co-conspirators from John Swofford's deal with ESPN sometime within the next 3-4 years — and lands 'em an SEC or B1G spot as a result — would be a definitive W.

The funny thing is both sides may well be operating out of the same playbook.

The GoR is Ironclad: The financial risk and repercussions of fighting a legal battle that is far from a sure-fire win could ending up costing a school a half-billion dollars or more. Take that chance at your own peril

Drown the ACC in lawsuits: The ACC office itself by no means has deep pockets — the member schools themselves sustain the conference. If one school after another after another hits Jim Phillips and his fine folks in Greensboro with a lawsuit ... at what point is it wiser to settle then to continue to fight a battle with mounting legal bills and no guarantee of victory? Again, conference offices are even less equipped than major universities to fight expensive legal battles

....

Reluctance to go to court can work two ways, yes.

Interesting to see this finally being noticed.

(05-15-2023 12:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 10:27 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Who wins?

And by win, I think most level-headed folks would agree that an outcome that frees FSU, Clemson and their five co-conspirators from John Swofford's deal with ESPN sometime within the next 3-4 years — and lands 'em an SEC or B1G spot as a result — would be a definitive W.

The funny thing is both sides may well be operating out of the same playbook.

The GoR is Ironclad: The financial risk and repercussions of fighting a legal battle that is far from a sure-fire win could ending up costing a school a half-billion dollars or more. Take that chance at your own peril

Drown the ACC in lawsuits: The ACC office itself by no means has deep pockets — the member schools themselves sustain the conference. If one school after another after another hits Jim Phillips and his fine folks in Greensboro with a lawsuit ... at what point is it wiser to settle then to continue to fight a battle with mounting legal bills and no guarantee of victory? Again, conference offices are even less equipped than major universities to fight expensive legal battles

....

Reluctance to go to court can work two ways, yes.

Interesting to see this finally being noticed.

Phillips is gearing up for war already.

https://theacc.com/news/2023/3/30/acc-hi...unsel.aspx

(05-15-2023 10:27 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Who wins?

And by win, I think most level-headed folks would agree that an outcome that frees FSU, Clemson and their five co-conspirators from John Swofford's deal with ESPN sometime within the next 3-4 years — and lands 'em an SEC or B1G spot as a result — would be a definitive W.

The funny thing is both sides may well be operating out of the same playbook.

The GoR is Ironclad: The financial risk and repercussions of fighting a legal battle that is far from a sure-fire win could ending up costing a school a half-billion dollars or more. Take that chance at your own peril

Drown the ACC in lawsuits: The ACC office itself by no means has deep pockets — the member schools themselves sustain the conference. If one school after another after another hits Jim Phillips and his fine folks in Greensboro with a lawsuit ... at what point is it wiser to settle then to continue to fight a battle with mounting legal bills and no guarantee of victory? Again, conference offices are even less equipped than major universities to fight expensive legal battles

Tick, tick, tick ...

They both win.

Schools go to a P2 early, getting increased revenues, and most importantly locking in their ticket out of an off-brand leftover conference

The other ACC schools avoid being in Oregon St position come 2036 or sooner, likely paid to do so.

If 6 schools in P2 (7 if UNC acts quickly and gets Duke a ticket), then 10% to 15% of P2 schools annual TV revenue through 2036, plus $80 million amortized exit, and ESPN funding at around $20 million through 2036 before any conference network implications should do it imo

(05-15-2023 12:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 10:27 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Who wins?

And by win, I think most level-headed folks would agree that an outcome that frees FSU, Clemson and their five co-conspirators from John Swofford's deal with ESPN sometime within the next 3-4 years — and lands 'em an SEC or B1G spot as a result — would be a definitive W.

The funny thing is both sides may well be operating out of the same playbook.

The GoR is Ironclad: The financial risk and repercussions of fighting a legal battle that is far from a sure-fire win could ending up costing a school a half-billion dollars or more. Take that chance at your own peril

Drown the ACC in lawsuits: The ACC office itself by no means has deep pockets — the member schools themselves sustain the conference. If one school after another after another hits Jim Phillips and his fine folks in Greensboro with a lawsuit ... at what point is it wiser to settle then to continue to fight a battle with mounting legal bills and no guarantee of victory? Again, conference offices are even less equipped than major universities to fight expensive legal battles

....

Reluctance to go to court can work two ways, yes.

Interesting to see this finally being noticed.

Phillips is gearing up for war already.

https://theacc.com/news/2023/3/30/acc-hi...unsel.aspx

She's solid. And who better to work with the SEC?

(05-15-2023 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The basest form of entertainment is the propagation of pity or fear. This will be entertaining. Pity for the 8 which may be against, fear created by the 7 who want out.

It's high noon. Who takes the bullet? Have all the women and children left except for Grace Kelly?

What will ESPN do? Did ESPN secretly give assent?

In my opinion the only thing that happens is that the battle lines are defined. Those wanting out, or concessions, will become known, and those wanting status quo will be outed as well. This move simply gets the argument out in the open. From there ESPN can play a more active role.

Getting all of the egos and opinions into the room, letting them vent, and then brainstorming for potential solutions is a process which can't begin until everyone owns their position.

This is the beginning of a process towards a resolution whether that is changing distribution calculations (which I don't see working because there is no new money and some will get partially wealthier while others get poorer, and their own internal gap will grow) or dissolution, or merger, or something else entirely, or possibly the most dismal outcome, nothing.

Right now the ACC is about to have what it hasn't had since July of last year, everyone's attention. And that is not necessarily bad for them. They've been lost in the shuffle for two years now. Even bad publicity is good for visibility.

bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

To get a 5 game deal with the SEC, your T1 rights purchased by ESPN for 75 million, and to keep your independence, while escaping the ACC, it's vulnerabilities, and to obtain better match ups for money and overflow games in South Bend. Anything else?

1. They really do prefer the status quo.

2. You think they wouldn't get that deal if they sit on their hands and someone else breaks the GOR/ ACC for them, leaving their hands clean?

The church fathers at Notre Dame, of everybody in big time college athletics, might actually care about something like that.

(05-15-2023 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Reluctance to go to court can work two ways, yes.

Interesting to see this finally being noticed.

Phillips is gearing up for war already.

https://theacc.com/news/2023/3/30/acc-hi...unsel.aspx

She's solid. And who better to work with the SEC?

That hire was made at the end of March. By then the Secret 7 had been talking for at least a couple of months, per Dellenger and SI.

So the Seminoles are leading an uprising. How appropriate.

(05-15-2023 12:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:15 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

Read Swarbrick's reported comments in the article about the P2, and I think we could come up with a few ideas...

I still don't think most college sports fans actually understand actual real live Domers and what they believe about independence.

Let's put it this way: Dellenger's very first question upon hearing that a bunch of ACC schools are meeting would be, "Is Notre Dame part of that group?" That's the first question ALL of us would have because that would arguably be the biggest story in conference realignment history. The fact that he didn't mention ND in that article at all outside that old Swarbrick quote is instructive. You don't go under-the-radar with ND realignment speculation because that's the biggest driver of Internet clicks of them all. If there was ANYTHING there with ND, it would be blaring loudly in the headline.

I'm back on this train with you, Frank.

Because anything you could imagine Notre Dame wanting out of an ACC breakup -- is something they'd be able to get pretty easily if the ACC breaks up without any Notre Dame involvement.

You could argue that Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech have to move or the other one "takes their spot" and they get left out.

Nobody is taking Notre Dame's spot. They can ignore all of this until CNN reports the breakup of the ACC and deal with it that day with a couple of phone calls.

(05-15-2023 12:13 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:16 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  It won't be a legal battle. If this is true (the Secret 7)...it might be nothing more than holding up the stick to the lower value schools. Are you sure you don't want the carrot? The vice ever-tightening until all parties want change.

The basest form of entertainment is the propagation of pity or fear. This will be entertaining. Pity for the 8 which may be against, fear created by the 7 who want out.

It's high noon. Who takes the bullet? Have all the women and children left except for Grace Kelly?

What will ESPN do? Did ESPN secretly give assent?

In my opinion the only thing that happens is that the battle lines are defined. Those wanting out, or concessions, will become known, and those wanting status quo will be outed as well. This move simply gets the argument out in the open. From there ESPN can play a more active role.

Getting all of the egos and opinions into the room, letting them vent, and then brainstorming for potential solutions is a process which can't begin until everyone owns their position.

This is the beginning of a process towards a resolution whether that is changing distribution calculations (which I don't see working because there is no new money and some will get partially wealthier while others get poorer, and their own internal gap will grow) or dissolution, or merger, or something else entirely, or possibly the most dismal outcome, nothing.

Right now the ACC is about to have what it hasn't had since July of last year, everyone's attention. And that is not necessarily bad for them. They've been lost in the shuffle for two years now. Even bad publicity is good for visibility.

bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

I think that's a fair assessment.

There are a few others that I can think of that are (just barely) on this side of dissolution, but they also involve espn "helping out" or at least facilitating in some way.

Duke is not in the group. Its FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC and 3 others. Most likely UVA, NCSU and VT. It is NOT Duke, Wake Forest, BC, Pitt or Syracuse. Outside chance Notre Dame, Louisville or Georgia Tech is in the group instead of NCSU or VT.

(05-15-2023 12:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 11:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  bolded - I think that the number is 7, is telling.

I think it is a not too subtle way of saying that they don't (yet) have the votes for dissolution.

With also may be why no one - except the ones who've been loud about this in the past - has named their names yet.

I can find 10 votes to dissolve. I don't think they want to do that so 7 puts the matter into debate mode. It gives the others a fair chance to recognize what is against them and how they might yet find a amicable solution. To have started by claiming more than 7 votes the process itself would have been violated by intimidation rather than equitable discussion. 7 is serious, but not an ultimatum. If your goal is to work toward a solution which is not litigious you have to at least attempt consensus.

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia are the obvious 7. If played right Virginia Tech makes 8, with the right placement N.C. State makes 9 and Georgia Tech makes 10.

If ESPN is aboard this could be a serious move toward some kind of merger with the PAC 12 schools or the SEC.

If ESPN is working with FOX this could be a division into the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 and the move to 3 power conferences.

If it is just the ACC schools they can vote to dissolve and scatter while facing future legal battles individually.

They'll seek accommodations first. They'll seek mutual agreement on another course of action second, and only force dissolution as a last resort, if it isn't a bluff to begin with. For the 4 schools who took the lead I don't think it is a bluff. For the other 3 it may or may not be. We'll see.

The bolded is the only issue I have with your comment. Why would we upset the apple cart when we get are cake and eat it too?

To get a 5 game deal with the SEC, your T1 rights purchased by ESPN for 75 million, and to keep your independence, while escaping the ACC, it's vulnerabilities, and to obtain better match ups for money and overflow games in South Bend. Anything else?

It's moments like this where I think the Big10 is just remiss if they aren't already in talks with ND...

There is zero doubt they have been in talks with Notre Dame. That doesn't mean its going anywhere.

Its why ND is not likely in the secret 7. They want the ACC to stay together so they can have their cake and eat it too. A breakup of the ACC probably means they need to give up independence. Certainly losing more than 4 schools and the ACC would no longer be an acceptable home for them.