hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Holtz 1988. Kelly didn't win a NC @ NDI honestly don't remember their last National Championship. Weird.
Holtz 1988. Kelly didn't win a NC @ NDI honestly don't remember their last National Championship. Weird.
I get what you’re saying, but this is going to be 100% a football thing. Where the money goes, so goes the conference alignments.And from a basketball standpoint, 3 of those 4 TX schools have been damn good lately.
With Barry Alvarez as DC. Holtz would give Barry even more responsibility in 1989, practically making him a co head coach. It was Barry's audition to become a head coach the next year and eventually King of Madison.Holtz 1988. Kelly didn't win a NC @ ND
1 Apperance in a National Championship game. Figured you would know that guess not.
Absolutely.I get what you’re saying, but this is going to be 100% a football thing. Where the money goes, so goes the conference alignments.
It appears ND is awaiting the strengthening or demise of the ACC before they commit to a conference.
Florida St. doesn't fit the Delany Doctrine at all. It's not an AAU school. It's located in the panhandle of Florida on the red neck riviera. It's not even particularly close to a large television market that it controls. And it is a second fiddle in the state. If the demographics of Florida continue to change, UCF might be a bigger school in Florida sports wise in the next 20 years than Florida St. UCF already is the largest undergrad school in the state of Florida.I wonder what FL. State could bring to the BIG as far as media and fitting the bill. One would think the BIG would want to try to get into that market. It would also be going in a plucking a team from the SEC region. I realize Fl State is not in the SEC but it's down there in the region. Again, there would be a presence in the media market as well. Also wondering about Baylor or a Texas school for very same reason.
As far as a formidable team on the field or court, Fl. State has had some success in football and basketball in the past and seem to be a little more nationally recognized than some.
I've been following Notre Dame message boards since the news broke that Notre Dame was being courted. Their fanbase seems to be about 1/3rd of people that want to keep things the way it is and 2/3rds that recognize we are heading to 2 mega-conferences (and that group clearly wants to be in the B1G and not the SEC).It appears ND is awaiting the strengthening or demise of the ACC before they commit to a conference.
If ESPN blows up their TV deal with the ACC, then that 2035 date is no longer valid. I think ND is waiting for this.The ACC schools are in a different pickle. They have a clause in place that if you leave the conference, your school must give the ACC conference any revenue you make from television through 2035. I'm very uncertain that the ACC schools are really up for grabs because nobody is going to forgo $100mil a year and just hand it over to Wake Forest. They almost have to organize a safe landing for all of the members of the conference before any of them are moving. Now maybe it could be in the form of partial revenue sharing, or becoming a relegation conference to the SEC, or by the forming of a 3rd mega conference; but none of these ideas look like they have any legitimate way of coming to light.
I have read articles that state ND is stuck until 2035, and other articles that state the football team is free and clear, but the other sports are under the ACC umbrella through 2035. IMHO, the more financially savvy articles state they are free and clear. I'm no lawyer, but from the reputation from the sources I've read, I'm willing to bet ND is free of football whenever they want to be. I'll add a disclaimer that I've been wrong on more than one occasion.If ESPN blows up their TV deal with the ACC, then that 2035 date is no longer valid. I think ND is waiting for this.
But I'm also guessing the ACC won't let them out without some significant financial concessions as they'll end up similarly to where the PAC 12 is right now.
If ESPN blows up their TV deal with the ACC, then that 2035 date is no longer valid. I think ND is waiting for this.
But I'm also guessing the ACC won't let them out without some significant financial concessions as they'll end up similarly to where the PAC 12 is right now.
The last rumor I saw was that ESPN was offering a new TV Deal for the ACC schools close to current market value for any schools that stay and then that would allow other schools to leave. ESPN will make way more on SEC 20 games than they'll lose giving the current ACC a few more million each year.Why would ESPN do that? They have the ACC schools for much less than market value.
Lol, this is awesome. Looks real!
I'm no attorney but what I do know is that these schools have looked at the Grant of Rights contract that they are under and so far, haven't found a way out of it. I'm sure they've considered all the angles, they've probably got a boatload of lawyers who've looked at it and continue to do so. Maybe they'll come up with a way out. But so far, it seems to be pretty ironclad.When I think of the ACC Grant of Rights contract that is so far below market and 14 years to go..I think of my business law classes in college and recall that a contract is voidable if it is unreasonable and so heavily weighted toward one party.,..I think the word unconscionable is the key word. So I've wondered how it is that so many people assume that the ACC is irrevocably locked in. Seems to me that they can rescind the grant of rights. ? Any attorneys out there?
When I think of the ACC Grant of Rights contract that is so far below market and 14 years to go..I think of my business law classes in college and recall that a contract is voidable if it is unreasonable and so heavily weighted toward one party.,..I think the word unconscionable is the key word. So I've wondered how it is that so many people assume that the ACC is irrevocably locked in. Seems to me that they can rescind the grant of rights. ? Any attorneys out there?
When I think of the ACC Grant of Rights contract that is so far below market and 14 years to go..I think of my business law classes in college and recall that a contract is voidable if it is unreasonable and so heavily weighted toward one party.,..I think the word unconscionable is the key word. So I've wondered how it is that so many people assume that the ACC is irrevocably locked in. Seems to me that they can rescind the grant of rights. ? Any attorneys out there?