So there may or may not be a screenshot floating around on Twitter that seems to be from a reputable source but it’s from behind a paywall site so I’m not going to link to it here.. I’ll just say it smells like smoke.Links?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So there may or may not be a screenshot floating around on Twitter that seems to be from a reputable source but it’s from behind a paywall site so I’m not going to link to it here.. I’ll just say it smells like smoke.Links?
I mean the B12’s contract/GOR basically held up or OuT would’ve been gone immediately. The only escape for the ACC elites is the 8 (?) team agreement clause I believe.Not a lawyer but every single person involved in realignment mentions how iron clad the ACC contract is.
Honestly, the days of even schedules died with the elimination of the round robin.
Now the priority should be playing everyone as often as possible while still protecting traditional rivalries.
It's the model both the SEC and Big 10 are moving to. It'd be no fun going a decade without playing at UCF, or Cinci, or Provo for example. And it could to some extent effect recruiting in Ohio or Florida if you can't guarantee visit to Cinci/UCF at some point in a player's career. It could also hurt if we missed out on exposure to those crucial area by not visiting for a decade.
I guess we all have different preferences, maybe I'm too old school, but playing everybody every two years would definitely be the way I'd go.
That's fair. I just think it's an easier road trip for the team and fans (plus a decent alumni base already in the area), not as hard of a place to play and we actually have some history.
I don’t like unbalanced schedules, but as conferences grow to 14/16/18/24/whatever it’s obviously impossible to stay balanced. So how do you figure out your CCG competitors?not if you take the top 2 teams records with decent tie breakers.
Did they also mention how its never been challenged in court? - Schools thought the same thing about the NCAA and their TV contracts until a few schools decided to challenge them on it.Not a lawyer but every single person involved in realignment mentions how iron clad the ACC contract is.
As plenty of others have mentioned OUT couldn’t even get out of their GOR. I don’t get why we are even discussing it when it has been beaten to death. If schools could get out of it they would have.Did they also mention how its never been challenged in court? - Schools thought the same thing about the NCAA and their TV contracts until a few schools decided to challenge them on it.
I don’t like unbalanced schedules, but as conferences grow to 14/16/18/24/whatever it’s obviously impossible to stay balanced. So how do you figure out your CCG competitors?
Not too much of a fan myself, but I’ve heard talk that conferences are considering sending the two highest-ranked teams to the CCG. In a world with an expanded playoff and all the money that entails, I suppose that makes sense … the last thing a conference would want is seeing a highly ranked team lose the CCG to somebody sneaking in at 8-4 or something, taking the auto bid away and running the risk of your “better” team not getting an at-large. If you match up your two highest-ranked teams, the loser shouldn’t drop so far and keep your multiple-bid options open.
Not a court case, but in a real world example we have UT with an army of lawyers and more money than God and they couldn't weasel out of a GOR a couple years early. My general logic on the topic is if Texas can't do it, nobody can."Iron clad" you say. Any case law you can link to where a court has ruled on anything "GOR" related?
Right, but they can't vote if they have a conflict of interest. That means they need to vote before they find a landing spot. Even backchannel discussions with conferences or networks could open them up to a massive suite by any schools that are left out. That's a big risk to take with so many unknowns - how many do the B10/SEC/B12 even want to take, will the networks that don't have automatic escalators agree to pay for the new schools, will another set of schools randomly try to block adding someone? It's a big risk with a big downside and a lot of unknowns for an institution to take that kind of leap.I mean the B12’s contract/GOR basically held up or OuT would’ve been gone immediately. The only escape for the ACC elites is the 8 (?) team agreement clause I believe.
I don’t like unbalanced schedules, but as conferences grow to 14/16/18/24/whatever it’s obviously impossible to stay balanced. So how do you figure out your CCG competitors?
Not too much of a fan myself, but I’ve heard talk that conferences are considering sending the two highest-ranked teams to the CCG. In a world with an expanded playoff and all the money that entails, I suppose that makes sense … the last thing a conference would want is seeing a highly ranked team lose the CCG to somebody sneaking in at 8-4 or something, taking the auto bid away and running the risk of your “better” team not getting an at-large. If you match up your two highest-ranked teams, the loser shouldn’t drop so far and keep your multiple-bid options open.
As plenty of others have mentioned OUT couldn’t even get out of their GOR. I don’t get why we are even discussing it when it has been beaten to death. If schools could get out of it they would have.
Not an court case, but in a real world example we have UT with an army of lawyers and more money than God and they couldn't weasel out of a GOR a couple years early. My general logic on the topic is if Texas can't do it, nobody can.
I mean the B12’s contract/GOR basically held up or OuT would’ve been gone immediately. The only escape for the ACC elites is the 8 (?) team agreement clause I believe.
I don’t like unbalanced schedules, but as conferences grow to 14/16/18/24/whatever it’s obviously impossible to stay balanced. So how do you figure out your CCG competitors?
Not too much of a fan myself, but I’ve heard talk that conferences are considering sending the two highest-ranked teams to the CCG. In a world with an expanded playoff and all the money that entails, I suppose that makes sense … the last thing a conference would want is seeing a highly ranked team lose the CCG to somebody sneaking in at 8-4 or something, taking the auto bid away and running the risk of your “better” team not getting an at-large. If you match up your two highest-ranked teams, the loser shouldn’t drop so far and keep your multiple-bid options open.
I mean the B12’s contract/GOR basically held up or OuT would’ve been gone immediately. The only escape for the ACC elites is the 8 (?) team agreement clause I believe.
Ok man, I’m done trying to convince you on something everyone else’s already knows isn’t happening.OUT at a maximum faced 3 years from when their plans were "leaked." - The ACC schools are facing 13 years. Not even close to the same situation in terms of risk / reward which is what you weigh on a court challenge.
Ok man, I’m done trying to convince you on something everyone else’s already knows isn’t happening.
That’s not a bad idea but you still have to figure out how to determine which teams are the top two.What will never happen but needs to happen is get rid of the conf champ games. take top 2 from each power conference and a few wildcards. 12-16 team playoff.
Ok man, I’m done trying to convince you on something everyone else’s already knows isn’t happening.