This pretty much explains most of the reshuffling:
Whoa FSU president fires warning shots at BOT meeting sounds like they are big 10 bound ...
Whoa FSU president fires warning shots at BOT meeting sounds like they are big 10 bound ...
FSU Link
I dont think they are a good fit for the big10 but these are strange times in college football I don't discount anything at this point.I don't draw that conclusion. The shots you mentioned are just expressing the frustration of the situation they are in. And it's a crappy situation, which they are stuck in through 2036. Meanwhile the B1G teams and the SEC teams will be getting significantly more $$ per year, which makes it that much more difficult for FSU (and all ACC teams) to compete in ANY sport.
But B1G bound, I don't think you can take that from the comments of the FSU president. All teams in the ACC have signed a GOR which means that the ACC owns their TV rights thru 2036. That's the case even if they leave the ACC.
The CBS article I linked above has comments from a few members of the FSU BOT which claim that the GOR will not be an impediment. I think that's simply bravado on their part.
Unless FSU's lawyers can figure out a slick way to get out the GOR, I don't see why the B1G would be interested in FSU.
I would expect any timeline to involve Arizona + likely Arizona St/Utah to join the Big 12 first before the Big Ten takes any other PAC-12 teams.If the B1G also pulls Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal, the PAC (12?) will implode. It’s on life support now.
I'd like to think any expansion decisions would be made on their own merits and not based on what they mean regarding Notre Dame. With a solid P2 in the not to distant horizon, if ND wants to be a part of it they have two options - join the Big Ten or join the SEC. I guess a third option would be to de-emphasize football but their institutional ego won't allow them to do that.Also I still don’t think the Big Ten takes Stanford and especially Cal. There’s little to no upside there. Not unless it involves Notre Dame in some way.
I don't draw that conclusion. The shots you mentioned are just expressing the frustration of the situation they are in. And it's a crappy situation, which they are stuck in through 2036. Meanwhile the B1G teams and the SEC teams will be getting significantly more $$ per year, which makes it that much more difficult for FSU (and all ACC teams) to compete in ANY sport.
But B1G bound, I don't think you can take that from the comments of the FSU president. All teams in the ACC have signed a GOR which means that the ACC owns their TV rights thru 2036. That's the case even if they leave the ACC.
The CBS article I linked above has comments from a few members of the FSU BOT which claim that the GOR will not be an impediment. I think that's simply bravado on their part.
Unless FSU's lawyers can figure out a slick way to get out the GOR, I don't see why the B1G would be interested in FSU.
It looks like the ACC negotiated for security rather than dollars in 2012/2013. Perhaps UMD's discontent rattled them. Disney offered them a long-term commitment and the creation of the ACC Network, and they took it over higher pay-outs. The influence of several schools that think basketball-first, despite the fact that football is the real cash cow, probably also played a role. Some had even opposed the addition of the Big East schools on the grounds that it wouldn't be good for basketball. When one of your first thoughts is "how will this affect basketball?", you're probably not going to make the best choices.Obviously, the issue for the folks in Tallahassee arose from the fact that the president there at the time (I don't think Penn Staters need to be reminded who that was) utterly FUBAR-ed their athletics situation by agreeing to the GOR back in 2012/13. At the time, FSU was still the bell cow of ACC football (and is likely, today, the #1 target in the ACC - even with Clemson's recent ascendency). To a lesser extent, the presidents at Clemson, Miami, and - maybe - even VT (which was still pretty solid at that time) were asleep at the wheel (or just abjectly stupid - maybe both).
In 2012, when Maryland left the ACC for the Big Ten, the issue was the "buyout" (not a "grant of rights"). The ACC schools had established a "buyout" agreement - wherein a school that wanted to leave the ACC had to pay a fee of, approximately, $50 Million, IIRC. Interestingly, the 2 ACC schools that had NOT agreed to (voted for) the buyout fee were Maryland (President Wally Loh), and FSU (President Eric Barron). That fact may have helped Maryland leave the ACC at a lower buyout - though I can't swear to that - maybe they (or the Big Ten, through the loan) paid the full amount.
Bottom line, FSU/Barron knew (should have known) as well as anyone how stupid it would be for them to sign that idiotic long-term GOR.... but Barron did it anyway, in 2013.
All that said - and I am certainly not a "media rights attorney" (if there is such a thing) - when push comes to shove:
Given the uber-turbulent environment of minor league student-sports, I would not be the least surprised if Florida State (or Clemson or whomever) were able to work out an agreement to leave the ACC (for a non-crippling fee).
Trying to restrict the freedom of movement of a school that is a voluntary member of a consortium, that never received any actual consideration for those future values - in such a way that significantly damages the future earnings potential of that school - might be a tough sell, I would think.
The very calculated recent comments from the FSU poobahs are likely round 1 of that process.
I
Probably not. Until 1991, FSU and Miami were independents. FSU had been trying for years to join the SEC, but its membership was blocked by Florida. ACC invited it as a reaction to PSU going to the Big Ten.Ask that question back in the 1990's when FSU and Miami were in the Top 5 of the football rankings, if the Big10 wouldn't have been slobbering over getting them in one way or the other. How much does name recognition play into being accepted as a potential candidate by a conference, especially when that conference, (Big10), could be looking at one member being demoted or severely damaged for years, *aka NW:
The upside to Stanford and Cal is the SF/Oakland TV market and the high academic standing of both institutions. While we all look at it from a purely athletic standpoint, I don’t think the B1G sees it completely that way. Otherwise, Rutgers and MD wouldn’t have even been a thought in anyone’s mind at the B1G.I would expect any timeline to involve Arizona + likely Arizona St/Utah to join the Big 12 first before the Big Ten takes any other PAC-12 teams.
Also I still don’t think the Big Ten takes Stanford and especially Cal. There’s little to no upside there. Not unless it involves Notre Dame in some way.
I don't care anymore. Just f*cking play football.
yeah, research $$ are an order of magnitude larger than TV revenue for sportsThe upside to Stanford and Cal is the SF/Oakland TV market and the high academic standing of both institutions. While we all look at it from a purely athletic standpoint, I don’t think the B1G sees it completely that way. Otherwise, Rutgers and MD wouldn’t have even been a thought in anyone’s mind at the B1G.
Except that schools share TV revenues and not research dollars.yeah, research $$ are an order of magnitude larger than TV revenue for sports
Why start now?Be careful what you wish for.
Not sure which would be more annoying. Oregon having an open checkbook or having to listen to that stupid FSU chant.
If this guy believes that the next 24 hours are critical, than the big wigs at the Big 10 have already done their homework, contacted the respective peoples and have fat contracts lined up in place for something of this magnitude to happen within 24 hours. You don't pull multi-million dollar contracts and t.v. rights out of your arse without a lot of arse wiping the right people...
Except that schools share TV revenues and not research dollars.
^^ This ^^Except that schools share TV revenues and not research dollars.