Jump to content

gatormarc

Full Members
  • Posts

    612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gatormarc

  1. 9 hours ago, bullet said:

    Their attendance is nothing special.  They are in the bottom 3rd of the P5.  They do beat Cal, Stanford, Oregon St. and Washington St. in attendance pretty consistently.

    I'll give them credit. They've been increasing capacity and upgrading the stadium ever since they joined the Pac.

    They've been selling out consistently the last couple of years, and a lot of them traveled to Florida last year.

    We were hoping to go to the Utah game this year but it's a pricey ticket on secondary market.

    The cutoff for UF season football ticket holders to get to buy away tickets to the game calculated to roughly a $100,000 lifetime donation.

    Found a pic from last year. I didn't get a good photo of just the Utah fans in attendance but you can see a fair amount traveled.

    https://i.imgur.com/rsLLb4E.jpg

  2. 2 hours ago, utee94 said:

    I forget where, but a few days back I read some B10 boot-licker mediots declaring that the B1G was avoiding taking UW and UO because they didn't want to be seen as the ones that killed off the PAC.  But they'd be okay with the B12 doing it.  As if, taking USC and UCLA wasn't already the death blow.  Laughable.

    Somehow I'm sure they'll end up blaming Texas for all of it.

    They're very much about internal PR.

    2 years ago, the evil SEC/Disney Empire was attempting to destroy college football by destroying the B12 and taking their two best programs to the SEC.

    Thankfully for everyone, the B1G being the Leaders and Legends that they are, formed The Alliance™ to organize OOC competition, block playoff expansion, and to promise to not poach each other, though oddly enough, they excluded the B12.  

    Since that time, they've poached 2 teams from the Pac 12 and have cancelled OOC games with other The Alliance™ members, oh and they were good with the playoff changes once they got the LA schools.

    At this point, I think they've given up on fooling everyone else... they are just happy fooling their own fans who have all developed amnesia from the year of The Alliance™.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    I mean, I wouldn't want to play at night in November in Wisconsin, it'll be cold af, and cause all sorts of scheduling problems with weather like Big 10 early season baseball games which regularly get called for weather.

    Sure, but these are the same people that have beaten the drum for decades that the SEC doesn't play "Real Football®" because only "Real Football®" is played in the snow and the only reason the SEC has won any championships is because the SEC doesn't play their games in the snow like "Real Football Teams®."

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    I'm not reading that long ass article, but this makes no sense to me. Did UCLA and USC know this during their due diligence? Was the deal "you'll make a ton more money, we just don't know what it is yet." Is that really enough for regents to think they've satisfied their fiduciary obligation not even knowing for sure what the new payouts would be? We all know it's going to be a ton more than the pac, but you would think the bureaucrats would want to know for sure exactly how much more before voting yes (and for UCLA especially making their pitch to the UC regents that they have no choice but to leave Cal behind or die on the vine the same way). 

    He's linking to the same article posted by @Francisco 2.0 above.

    His snippets get the meat of it if you don't want to read the whole thing:

    It doesn't sound like any of this is an issue for UCLA/USC. It's still a lot of cash and the November evening game issue doesn't affect them at all.

    It's the existing members that are annoyed to find out that the deal isn't 99% done and they are being asked to make changes to keep the TV partners happy.

  5. 13 minutes ago, Wade said:

    Interesting article.  The most jaw-dropping thing for me is that the Big Ten Network (majority owned by Fox) owns the content, not the conference.  Fox execs attending negotiation sessions with rival networks.  They can't do deals without Fox's sign-off.  It's mind-boggling that the conference agreed to this arrangement.

    The fact that the hiccup with the conference title game happened suggests that Fox must've had some sort of isolated group acting on their behalf during the negotiations with preset rules.

    Because the only other way around it would be Fox knew that they owned the rights but just sit back and the Big10 sell them again anyway.

     

  6. 21 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:
    24 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Also shocked it was "overblown" since he was the one crying the most.

    I will love if they set up an unequal sharing system and then Pitt or UVA or Cuse or someone goes on a tear and wins the ACC several years in a row.   The risk of getting more in performance based, is you can also get less too

    image.png.ab7c6b402d13025ec7456ea90bca61c9.png

     

    They're pretty updity

    Alford has been pretty public for months outlining why FSU is worth more than the other schools, showing TV ratings, etc.

    It would be interesting if the whole thing was sidestepped by shifting it to completely merit based.

    1) Clemson is in because based on recent history, they'll get the cash.

    2) FSU can't really back down now without stating that they don't have confidence in Norvell. At least to me, the overwhelming overconfidence that developed last season for Norvell feels very forced. They rushed the field after beating a 6 win Florida team last season.

  7. 27 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

    I'd guess that the primary goal is getting FSU north of Big 12 payouts (i.e. UCF payouts) - even if they're only a couple million in front.  

    Take that, Citronauts!

    - Chief Osceola, probably.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 8 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

    did anything happen today?

    $10 M doesn't cut the gap. If that's something seriously being considered by everyone then:

    1) It's confirmation that the GoR is tougher to break and just dissolving the conference doesn't make it much easier

    2) FSU and Clemson lose most of their Magnificent 7 votes when just a bit more money is offered.

  9. 2 minutes ago, statsman said:

    I think the SEC really does have a block against adding schools from states that already have members (unless they’re clearly that state’s flagship). Too bad for FSU, and Miami. Maybe too bad for Clemson. 

    If I were FSU or Clemson, I wouldn't be attaching myself to Miami. They're an anchor.

  10. 1 hour ago, hook me said:

    On top of that, the SEC doesn't seem too keen on adding schools like NCST & Va Tech considering they wouldn't even take OU without UT coming along as well

    While realignment is a fun topic, I don't think the average SEC fan hasn't been excited about expansion in general as it affects them.

    OU and Texas were homeruns because:

    • 2 historic all-sport programs
    • money
    • brought back to life some rivalries
    • is a driver to a 9 game conference schedule and a faster rotation

    That said, we're still almost 2 years into the debate to sell the 9 game schedule to all of the existing members and that's with the no brainer adds to the conference.

    Now you bring in 2 or 4 more programs you are looking at one or more of:

    • less money or at best, break even
    • affects rivalries less since some of the big ones (UF/FSU and USC/Clemson) have never stopped
    • conflict over whether to play even more conference games and/or slower rotation

    Each add should be an even bigger gain than the last because big conferences are unwieldy. So programs that would be attractive to a 12 team conference are naturally less so to a 16 team conference.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 12 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

    Notre Dame doesn't get a vote on stuff like this because they're only partial members, though the ACC collapsing would make it easier for them to join the B1G.  IIRC they would still owe a lot of money to the ACC if they join any other conference before the GOR expires.

    It's not clear to me whether they have a vote or not. The Notre Dame section only states that they can't vote if an issue specifically relates to football.

    Quote

    Representatives of the University of Notre Dame serving on the Board, the Executive Committee or other Committees shall recuse themselves from voting on or participating in – and if asked shall leave the room during – the discussion of matters specifically relating to football, including media and broadcast rights relating to football, and such representatives shall not be considered in determining whether a quorum is present for any such vote.

    Nothing in the board voting requirements excludes Notre Dame that I can find.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

    For the Big 12, in order to dissolve you need a super majority of "disinterested directors" which basically means ones who don't have an active stake in the issue at hand.   E.g. if you want to leave and its in your best interest to dissolve, you become an "interested director", which is what Texas and Oklahoma became when they announced they were leaving.   So to dissolve with 10 they needed 8, but after they left, they needed 6 of the remaining 8 schools to sign on.   

    eb31c99200f729d3535bae4f014cc14d.png

    1dc3409fb8cd3f9bd9a0821a10e83984.png

    So, if the ACC copied this, they would need 12 members to dissolve if all parties remained "disinterested".   If the 8 who weren't interested made the claim the seven listed above were interested parties, then they'd need 6 of the remaining 8 to dissolve.

    It's sort of a safety net to keep everyone from just skuttling the conference unless all members are on board with the idea.

    Found the ACC bylaws. As far as I can find it, there is no provision for a process for dissolution aside from the fiduciary responsibilities of handling assets, etc and nothing about disinterested members, and also nothing about existing contracts/debts.

    Quote

    2.11.3.4 Dissolution Clause. Upon the dissolution of the Conference, the Board shall dispose of all the assets of the organization exclusively for the purpose of the organization in such manner, or to such organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, religious or scientific purposes as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law), as the Board shall determine. Any of such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the state court of jurisdiction in which the principal office of the organization is then located, exclusively for such purposes or to such organization or organizations as said court shall determine which are organized and operated exclusively for such purposes.

    So I guess that's where the "8 votes" comes from, the assumption that a simple majority is enough since it's not spelled out as requiring a 2/3 or 3/4 vote as some of the other sections spell out.

    I guess it could easily be a case of "yes, you can dissolve the ACC but even that doesn't remove the requirements of your contract with ESPN."

    https://virginiatech.sportswar.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2022/08/2020-21-ACC-Manual-2020-9-17-2.pdf 

    Edit: I see bullet already tackled much of this. I really should have refreshed the screen before posting.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Dissolution is usually hard.   For the Big 12, after the 2010 realignment, rewrote their bylaws to basically state the last one in the room retains ownership, down to one, and anyone communicating their leaving loses their vote.   When the ACC made their new deal with ESPN, they basically took all the lock downs that the Big 12 added, and made them even tighter.

    I'd love to have a look at their bylaws. Unfortunately, I can't find anything recent online.

  14. 10 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

    Why not Minny for UCLA? The bus drive from the airport to NU and especially Purdue can’t be ignored. Same for Iowa, as that drive from Des Moines to Iowa City always seems longer than it is. And NW for USC doesn’t seem as “footbally” as some other options, regardless of NW’s overachievements. 

    Wait... wouldn't they fly directly into Iowa City, Lafayette, etc?

  15. 1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    I kind of hated the media reaction to USC and UCLA leaving for the Big Ten. USC at Rutgers was the most common/laziest example. It'll happen eventually, but what we're talking about in most cases is West Coast schools flying to the Midwest. 

    Hell Austin to almost every SEC East town is 2+ hours. 

    There is a notable difference though.

    The shortest flight for the LA schools to the current B1G is 3.5 hours to Nebraska. The longest flight for Texas to the current SEC is under 3 hours to Florida.

    And it's not just football you are handling for that, but all of the other sports too.

  16. 1 minute ago, 'stache said:

    I think Stanford and Cal would find their way to the ACC, as dumb as that would sound with the conference name. Indy is too difficult to navigate, for Cal especially, and they would have some relatively peer institutions academically. I doubt they would get the ND deal as a partial member for football only. 

    Indie scheduling will also get tougher as conferences add more in-conference games.

  17. 8 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    To the extent it was even a requirement at all. Maryland and Michigan didn’t play a P5 school in nonconference last year. 

    I recall Michigan got a special exception for UConn since they are an independent but I don't know about Maryland. It's a lot harder to find out the details on the Big10. They don't seem to host all of their rulebooks online like the SEC does.

    Also, yeah, I guess they dropped the requirement after a year.

     

  18. 8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    Yeah I don't think we can necessarily look at past CFB playoff rankings as a rationale for how they will rank once the expansion starts. Every year rankings were setup for 4 teams and the 5-25 didn't matter. I'm interested to see how committee will rank 5-8 in accordance with 9-12 as they now have significant meaning.

    I don't think the SEC has come a decision yet on scheduling. I'd imagine they'd want it hashed out before the start of this coming season so they can drop the new 2024 schedules around the same time they normally do. 

    The expectation is that the SEC will vote on the scheduling format in a few weeks at the Spring meetings in Destin. 

    I could see the SEC dropping the P5 OOC requirement as well to get the last few stragglers on board (Kentucky and I think the Mississippi schools) with a 9 game conference schedule.

    I don't see it really affecting the top half of the league because the current belief among them is that with a 12 game playoff is that schedule is more important than perfection.

×
×
  • Create New...