Why sign a contract if you don’t intend to live up to it ?
These schools know what they’re getting into when they sign.
They should do their homework up front.
It’s disgraceful what they are doing.
correct, but the AG is just playing politics.
Florida State is a public institution. They have copies of whatever they signed. (or their attorneys should.) The FSU board agreed to sign those docs. (or should have) The State Commissioner of Education is a FSU Trustee. If the State AG wanted to see their contracts, he could pick up the phone. (If the attorneys don’t’ have copies and the Board of Trustees did not approve teh deal, they all shoudl be fired for incompetence.)
That said, what the AG was really after is the docs signed between teh ACC office and espn. All of which woudl have to come out in discovery.
My thought is that the addition of FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 would result in a higher payout for media rights if–and I have read that it does–the media rights contract contains an escalator clause. Additionally, FSU would negotiate for a higher payout than other teams receive. In short, the Big 12 payout to FSU would be higher than the current Big 12 payout to its member schools.
Regardless, FSU is determined to obtain AAU membership so that it would “qualify” to become a member of the Big Ten Conference.
1 Like
FSU could do the same with the ACC next year when espn has a chance to renegotiate their deal.
Exactly. That is clearly the best outcome for the Seminoles. (I was surprised that AAU rejected them last year, but I have no insight into academic politics.)
Since August 15 has come and gone, that means FSU and others will remain in the ACC for at least the next two years, at which time ESPN has an option to renogiate their contract with the ACC.
Expect the leagues to start to blow up at that time. FSU et al will not want to re-up for longer than 3 years as the BiG contract goes to '29. Also, espn might only offer the ACC a 3-year deal.
1 Like
I still don’t get what the Big Ten was thinking when it rejected Cal and Stanford. Talk about two no-brainer (so to say) feathers to put in your conference’s cap.
I know that Fox had some – maybe a lot of – say in that decision but I imagine the Big Ten schools’ presidents became ill when that was announced.
I’m still optimistic that they’ll be added within the next half decade or so.
1 Like
Fox was 100% behind the decision, and it was all financial. They basically said, 'look our numbers indicate that those two schools may only bring a few extra dollars, so that our bid doesn’t really change. So, it’s up to you Presidents, if you want to split the same pie by 14 or by 16, so your school would get less.
Cal and Stanford still have to decide if they want to compete at the highest level of football and in the evolving championship league of ~40 teams. Once relegated, it will kill off their non-revenue (Olympic) sports as there will be no future option to move up. (Yeah, Stanford is rich enough to continue to keep funding its athletic department, but Cal, which sponsors ~30 D1 sports, is not.)
2 Likes
hmmmm - why - they’re not going to add money in the other school’s pockets.
If anyone thinks the schools really care about the academics - hmmmm - maybe a tinge.
They care about $$ - and neither is a huge name athletically (in your two money sports).
They would have bought a bigger market - but like Rutgers in NY, if no one cares…
If I recall correctly, neither Fox nor the Presidents of the Big Ten schools were interested in either Stanford or UC-Berkeley despite both schools outstanding academics and research.
The Big Ten Conference is focused on Notre Dame & Texas A&M. Big Ten Conference wants to break into the Texas and Florida football recruiting markets.
2 Likes
Correct, Fox was not interested.
Incorrect, in that the President’s would have loved to expand with 2 AAU schools, particular as a way to add a West Coast pod with UCLA & USC and reduce travel. (They even asked the BiG commissioner to look the numbers again and then get Fox on the line to explain why their number was their number.) But adding CalFord to the BiG by the Presidents would have required that their own athletic department gets less money every year. Just a bridge too far.
Notre Dame is locked into its ACC contract until '34, unless espn blows it up the contract '26. Regardless, no way the BiG can make any overture to ND without being sued for tortious (sp?) interference.
If Notre Dame football reached an agreement with the ACC, then there is no concern. Many ACC teams are waiting for FSU & Clemson to break-up the ACC before moving on.
Reports suggested otherwise regarding Stanford & Berkeley, but I would be delighted to read anything that you have suggesting otherwise.
I hadn’t heard that TAMU was unhappy in the SEC; or are they unhappy now that “the other UT” is joining the conference starting this Fall?
1 Like
Yes, it is fairly well reported that the SEC’s addition of U Texas infuriated Texas A&M which felt that it had been betrayed.
Here is a link that should help you to better understand the situation:
Paul Finebaum is the most respected reporter regarding SEC football.
Another reporter with longstanding contacts with the Big Ten Conference has reported discussions between the Big Ten Conference and Texas A&M over a recent period of more than 6 months. This report, however, is unconfirmed by other sources.
P.S. The rumors surrounding a desire for Texas A&M to move to the Big Ten Conference are so pervasive that even the Houston Chronicle wrote a very recent (July 16, 2024) article in response denying the rumored move/desire to move. The article is behind a paywall.
https://houstonchronicle.com/sports/college/article/aggies-sec-not-big-ten-19576581.php
1 Like
Yes A&M was peeved. But the SEC is better off with UT than A&M. And I personally don’t think A&M and the Big 10 fit. But if that’s the only choice for A&M.
Remember years back the PAC 10 almost got UT and OU?
For anyone who thinks this is about academics and not money ((Stanford, Cal) - think again.
Do you even know what a college football GM is ? I had to look it up. Well - they’re making a higher base than the Chancellor.
2 Likes
that’s bcos they bring in more money than the Chancellor
1 Like
The Big Ten Conference has made it clear to many that it has a strong desire for a presence in both Texas & Florida.
The SEC’s territory is the most logical from a geographic perspective (contiguous states).
Entering the state of Texas makes more sense for the Big Ten Conference than does moving into Florida through U Miami or FSU. Of course, geography does not seem to be a barrier for the Big Ten Conference.
My speculative thought is that the SEC will tolerate the addition of a Texas school (Texas A&M) to the Big Ten Conference rather than deal with competitive recruiting in the state of Florida and further dilution of mega-conference recruiting in the state of Texas (if the Big Ten Conference adds a team other than U Texas or Texas A&M).
Adding Texas A&M to the Big Ten Conference could benefit U Texas, Texas A&M, the SEC as well as the Big Ten Conference if we buy into the scenario of two mega-conferences leaving the NCAA and instituting their own “national championship playoff”. A key to this vision is not allowing the dilution of Texas recruiting by adding a third Texas university to one of the two mega-conferences.
At present, only U Texas and Texas A&M are AAU members–a soft “requirement” for Big Ten Conference membership. Of course, another Texas university could be invited to join the AAU, but unlikely based on the current situation.
Better for Texas A&M to join the Big Ten Conference than for a third Texas university to join the Big Ten Conference resulting in a diluted pool for football recruiting (top recruits want exposure & desire to play for teams capable of competing for a national championship).
Will a move of Texas A&M to the Big Ten Conference lead to an implicit understanding that the Big Ten Conference will not add a team from the state of Florida ? Maybe. However, such an agreement cannot be explicit --and, therefore, not guaranteed–without incurring a violation of the Sherman Act (antitrust).
1 Like
not seeing the two conferences leaving in totality; the top football programs will leave. There is only enough TV money to enrich 40-50 schools. Fox/espn is not gonna pay $100m to broadcast Indiana vs Minnesota, or Vandy vs. South Carolina. And tOSU, Michigan, USC, 'Bama, Georgia, OK, Tx, et al are not gonna accept only $70m so they can share their wealth with their League have-nots.
IMO, teh Super Natty Conference will result from a collection of top football programs from the P4. For example, FSU/Clemson from the ACC, Baylor & TCU from the B12 (?)…and the usually suspects from the BiG and SEC.
Just too much money involved to leave on the table. It won’t take much for the tOSU President to see what their athletic department could do with an additional $30m every year. (just assuming numbers for example)
1 Like
I see it differently. With NIL and team-wide compensation, the richest teams can buy the most talented and most promising players. With increased separation in payouts by conference, the wealthier conferences will be enriching & enabling better pay for each team’s football players thereby elevating SEC & Big Ten teams which are now mediocre by their respective conference standards.
Many speculate that the Big 12 conference will accept private equity money in order to add both FSU & Clemson, otherwise both teams risk becoming non-factors for contention for a national championship in football. Both Clemson & FSU fully understand this and that is why both are taking every course of action to leave the ACC.
Under this scenario, the Power 4 conferences would become the Power 3 conferences–much less chance of creating a violation of the antitrust laws under both the Sherman Act and under relevant state laws if there are 3 mega-conferences rather than just two.
1 Like
This is neither the head coach nor coordinator nor AD. Not even a field coach.
I had to look up what the job does.
I’m just making the point on conference alignment.
It’s not can we get a top academic school.
It’s which will make us money.
Hence Louisville is in the ACC.
Earlier in this thread, there was a bit of discussion regarding the possible addition of Stanford and Berkeley to the Big Ten Conference due to superior academics & research as well as to ease the travel burdens of other West Coast Big Ten Conference member schools (UCLA, USC, U Oregon, & U Washington). However, the West Coast Big Ten Conference members did not want Stanford & Berkeley because it would dilute the football player recruiting pool as the best players usually want to play for the best conferences (Big Ten & SEC). This was, and remains, a very important factor.
Eventually, my guess is that both Stanford and Berkeley may have to reevaluate participation in big time college football due to excessive travel burdens, higher expenses, and a widening revenue gap between the mega-conference member teams and the teams which are not part of a mega-conference. (FWIW Baseball may be the first casualty of the current conference affiliation for Stanford & Berkeley as travel expenses are very high and revenue is almost non-existent.)
To the best of my knowledge, none of the SEC, Big Ten Conference, or Big 12 Conference have shown any interest in either Berkeley or Stanford. This is all about money and power, not academics.
2 Likes