[GK3]

I think it is valid to ask if major conference football is essential to Stanford Athletics. Or rather is the money from major conference football essential to Stanford Athletics? From what I can tell, the University will be heavily subsidizing Athletics for at least the next 7 years as Stanford gives back a share of its share of the ACC tier 1 media rights. This will enable Stanford to continue to offer 36 sports (or close to it, I still think a reckoning is coming where a few sports are cut for budget reasons). 

If Stanford drops down to a lesser FBS conference or to a lower division, the current broad-based Athletic program is viable if the University will continue to subsidize it.

Always thought Stanford should be in the MWC anyway. I'd go to Fresno, Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Diego, Berkeley, Reno, etc. for away games.

---

I think it is valid to ask if major conference football is essential to Stanford Athletics. Or rather is the money from major conference football essential to Stanford Athletics? From what I can tell, the University will be heavily subsidizing Athletics for at least the next 7 years as Stanford gives back a share of its share of the ACC tier 1 media rights. This will enable Stanford to continue to offer 36 sports (or close to it, I still think a reckoning is coming where a few sports are cut for budget reasons). 

If Stanford drops down to a lesser FBS conference or to a lower division, the current broad-based Athletic program is viable if the University will continue to subsidize it.

Always thought Stanford should be in the MWC anyway. I'd go to Fresno, Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Diego, Berkeley, Reno, etc. for away games.

I can get interested in playing Clemson and FSU in football simply due to their status, but there are no rivalry games outside of Cal.  In basketball the ACC deal is more interesting as get would get to play Duke and the Carolinas, but again no rivalries out side of Cal. We have played USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon and Cal for almost 100 years.  I used to look forward to those games as there was always something in the past to get even for, but not now.  I always felt those rivalries were a big part of our Football and Basketball heritage. Things changed until it became all about money and nothing else.  A sad ending for a lot of fun matchups and history.

[GK3]

I think it is valid to ask if major conference football is essential to Stanford Athletics. Or rather is the money from major conference football essential to Stanford Athletics? From what I can tell, the University will be heavily subsidizing Athletics for at least the next 7 years as Stanford gives back a share of its share of the ACC tier 1 media rights. This will enable Stanford to continue to offer 36 sports (or close to it, I still think a reckoning is coming where a few sports are cut for budget reasons). 

If Stanford drops down to a lesser FBS conference or to a lower division, the current broad-based Athletic program is viable if the University will continue to subsidize it.

Always thought Stanford should be in the MWC anyway. I'd go to Fresno, Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Diego, Berkeley, Reno, etc. for away games.

---

I think it is valid to ask if major conference football is essential to Stanford Athletics. Or rather is the money from major conference football essential to Stanford Athletics? From what I can tell, the University will be heavily subsidizing Athletics for at least the next 7 years as Stanford gives back a share of its share of the ACC tier 1 media rights. This will enable Stanford to continue to offer 36 sports (or close to it, I still think a reckoning is coming where a few sports are cut for budget reasons). 

If Stanford drops down to a lesser FBS conference or to a lower division, the current broad-based Athletic program is viable if the University will continue to subsidize it.

Always thought Stanford should be in the MWC anyway. I'd go to Fresno, Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Diego, Berkeley, Reno, etc. for away games.

I can get interested in playing Clemson and FSU in football simply due to their status, but there are no rivalry games outside of Cal.  In basketball the ACC deal is more interesting as get would get to play Duke and the Carolinas, but again no rivalries out side of Cal. We have played USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon and Cal for almost 100 years.  I used to look forward to those games as there was always something in the past to get even for, but not now.  I always felt those rivalries were a big part of our Football and Basketball heritage. Things changed until it became all about money and nothing else.  A sad ending for a lot of fun matchups and history.

[StanfordMatt]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

[StanfordMatt]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

[needle]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

[needle]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

[Giants]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

https://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-system.../21226287/

Any decision made by the Chapel Hill campus regarding their conference home can be overturned by the NC system governing board.  

They learned a lesson from the UCLA/Cal debacle…..

And, of course, the politics in NC are different.  I don’t see NC/NC State going in different directions.

[Giants]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

https://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-system.../21226287/

Any decision made by the Chapel Hill campus regarding their conference home can be overturned by the NC system governing board.  

They learned a lesson from the UCLA/Cal debacle…..

And, of course, the politics in NC are different.  I don’t see NC/NC State going in different directions.

[qwerty49]

Always thought Stanford should be in the MWC anyway. I'd go to Fresno, Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Diego, Berkeley, Reno, etc. for away games.

For a while I did an annual roadie with 3 other buddies - UDub, $C, UCLA, Army, Navy, Northwestern, Duke, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, and ND twice. We brought the spouses to NYC and they had a great time in Manhattan while we took the boat up to West Point.

But those trips are honestly harder and harder to justify. Part of it is geezerhood, part the product on the field, part was moving to SoCal and no longer having an easy reason to stay overnight in the Bay area after a night game in Palo Alto.

Fresno? Yuck. Vegas? Meh. Hawaii? Sure. Albuquerque/Santa Fe? Hmmm….

[qwerty49]

Always thought Stanford should be in the MWC anyway. I'd go to Fresno, Hawaii, Las Vegas, San Diego, Berkeley, Reno, etc. for away games.

For a while I did an annual roadie with 3 other buddies - UDub, $C, UCLA, Army, Navy, Northwestern, Duke, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, and ND twice. We brought the spouses to NYC and they had a great time in Manhattan while we took the boat up to West Point.

But those trips are honestly harder and harder to justify. Part of it is geezerhood, part the product on the field, part was moving to SoCal and no longer having an easy reason to stay overnight in the Bay area after a night game in Palo Alto.

Fresno? Yuck. Vegas? Meh. Hawaii? Sure. Albuquerque/Santa Fe? Hmmm….

[Mick]

Interesting that, in its last year, the Pac-12 got just four teams in the tournament (Arizona, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado), the ACC got five in (UNC, Duke, NC State, Clemson, VA), and marginalized, no-one-cares Mountain West Conference got six teams in the tournament (New Mexico, SDSU, Boise ST., Utah St., Colorado St., Nevada).

SEC and Big 12 have eight teams in March Madness. MWC and Big Ten are next most at six each.

[Mick]

Interesting that, in its last year, the Pac-12 got just four teams in the tournament (Arizona, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado), the ACC got five in (UNC, Duke, NC State, Clemson, VA), and marginalized, no-one-cares Mountain West Conference got six teams in the tournament (New Mexico, SDSU, Boise ST., Utah St., Colorado St., Nevada).

SEC and Big 12 have eight teams in March Madness. MWC and Big Ten are next most at six each.

[2006alum]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

The ACC's Grant of Rights is tied up in a contract with ESPN through 2026, including the ACC Network, so ESPN definitely has no incentive for teams to move to the B1G where Fox is the main player, though obviously that contract is much shorter than the individual members' 2036 GOR agreements with the ACC.

In general, the dynamic with the ACC is quite different from the Pac-12, because in the latter's case, neither Fox nor ESPN had a stake in the Pac-12 Network, so they had every incentive to lure schools to the conferences where they had deeper, network relationships. At this point, ESPN loses more from the ACC evaporating than it gains from a few ACC schools moving over to the SEC or (especially) the B1G. 

All that said, we're at close to an inflection point for a nonsensical college sports landscape. Some legacy members of the "Super" Conferences (think the Purdues and Vanderbilts of the world) are reaping totally unearned benefits at the expense of the biggest members of the other P4 Conferences (FSU, Clemson). In between sits the Big 12, which has a really solid set of basketball schools and a pretty forgettable football lineup, but no members remaining who are credible threats to walk.

And the other thing to remember here is that ESPN and Fox still depend tremendously on linear subscriptions to make this all work. Those honeypots are drying up really fast, and it's not clear they're going to be replaced by streaming deals that make up anywhere near the necessary revenue. If not, then the current TV deals aren't going to be sustainable for much longer, either.

So while I hesitate to predict what will happen, the current status quo is definitely not going to last for more than a few more years.

[2006alum]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

The ACC's Grant of Rights is tied up in a contract with ESPN through 2026, including the ACC Network, so ESPN definitely has no incentive for teams to move to the B1G where Fox is the main player, though obviously that contract is much shorter than the individual members' 2036 GOR agreements with the ACC.

In general, the dynamic with the ACC is quite different from the Pac-12, because in the latter's case, neither Fox nor ESPN had a stake in the Pac-12 Network, so they had every incentive to lure schools to the conferences where they had deeper, network relationships. At this point, ESPN loses more from the ACC evaporating than it gains from a few ACC schools moving over to the SEC or (especially) the B1G. 

All that said, we're at close to an inflection point for a nonsensical college sports landscape. Some legacy members of the "Super" Conferences (think the Purdues and Vanderbilts of the world) are reaping totally unearned benefits at the expense of the biggest members of the other P4 Conferences (FSU, Clemson). In between sits the Big 12, which has a really solid set of basketball schools and a pretty forgettable football lineup, but no members remaining who are credible threats to walk.

And the other thing to remember here is that ESPN and Fox still depend tremendously on linear subscriptions to make this all work. Those honeypots are drying up really fast, and it's not clear they're going to be replaced by streaming deals that make up anywhere near the necessary revenue. If not, then the current TV deals aren't going to be sustainable for much longer, either.

So while I hesitate to predict what will happen, the current status quo is definitely not going to last for more than a few more years.

[chrisk]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

The ACC's Grant of Rights is tied up in a contract with ESPN through 2026, including the ACC Network, so ESPN definitely has no incentive for teams to move to the B1G where Fox is the main player, though obviously that contract is much shorter than the individual members' 2036 GOR agreements with the ACC.

In general, the dynamic with the ACC is quite different from the Pac-12, because in the latter's case, neither Fox nor ESPN had a stake in the Pac-12 Network, so they had every incentive to lure schools to the conferences where they had deeper, network relationships. At this point, ESPN loses more from the ACC evaporating than it gains from a few ACC schools moving over to the SEC or (especially) the B1G. 

All that said, we're at close to an inflection point for a nonsensical college sports landscape. Some legacy members of the "Super" Conferences (think the Purdues and Vanderbilts of the world) are reaping totally unearned benefits at the expense of the biggest members of the other P4 Conferences (FSU, Clemson). In between sits the Big 12, which has a really solid set of basketball schools and a pretty forgettable football lineup, but no members remaining who are credible threats to walk.

And the other thing to remember here is that ESPN and Fox still depend tremendously on linear subscriptions to make this all work. Those honeypots are drying up really fast, and it's not clear they're going to be replaced by streaming deals that make up anywhere near the necessary revenue. If not, then the current TV deals aren't going to be sustainable for much longer, either.

So while I hesitate to predict what will happen, the current status quo is definitely not going to last for more than a few more years.

I agree. Stanford is essentially playing a medium-range waiting game. It is trying to stay viable while waiting for the new landscape to take shape. If a Power 2 emerge, Stanford will likely not be part of that. But if Congress and the NCAA clamp down hard on NIL in recruiting (which ACC president Phillips is pushing hard for), who knows how the landscape will shake out? If NIL continues to be used in recruiting, there will be a host of schools that will get off that merry-go-round and Stanford could join them. How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

[chrisk]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

The Miami AD apparently is speaking nice about the ACC, fwiw (not much): https://twitter.com/flasportsbuzz/status...52777?s=46

At the end of the day, it seem to me that ESPN benefits quite a bit from the ACC as currently constituted. Do any "experts" here think that ESPN could get involved in the legal case(s), and, if so, could their involvement actually help keep the ACC together?

The ACC's Grant of Rights is tied up in a contract with ESPN through 2026, including the ACC Network, so ESPN definitely has no incentive for teams to move to the B1G where Fox is the main player, though obviously that contract is much shorter than the individual members' 2036 GOR agreements with the ACC.

In general, the dynamic with the ACC is quite different from the Pac-12, because in the latter's case, neither Fox nor ESPN had a stake in the Pac-12 Network, so they had every incentive to lure schools to the conferences where they had deeper, network relationships. At this point, ESPN loses more from the ACC evaporating than it gains from a few ACC schools moving over to the SEC or (especially) the B1G. 

All that said, we're at close to an inflection point for a nonsensical college sports landscape. Some legacy members of the "Super" Conferences (think the Purdues and Vanderbilts of the world) are reaping totally unearned benefits at the expense of the biggest members of the other P4 Conferences (FSU, Clemson). In between sits the Big 12, which has a really solid set of basketball schools and a pretty forgettable football lineup, but no members remaining who are credible threats to walk.

And the other thing to remember here is that ESPN and Fox still depend tremendously on linear subscriptions to make this all work. Those honeypots are drying up really fast, and it's not clear they're going to be replaced by streaming deals that make up anywhere near the necessary revenue. If not, then the current TV deals aren't going to be sustainable for much longer, either.

So while I hesitate to predict what will happen, the current status quo is definitely not going to last for more than a few more years.

I agree. Stanford is essentially playing a medium-range waiting game. It is trying to stay viable while waiting for the new landscape to take shape. If a Power 2 emerge, Stanford will likely not be part of that. But if Congress and the NCAA clamp down hard on NIL in recruiting (which ACC president Phillips is pushing hard for), who knows how the landscape will shake out? If NIL continues to be used in recruiting, there will be a host of schools that will get off that merry-go-round and Stanford could join them. How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

[Goose]

How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

IMO they all do :-). What they don't want is their competitors being able to do the same (or "worse"). NIL is one of those "ideas" that after a little experience in the "wild west" situation, "management" decides that regulation of some sort is desirable. Since the NCAA can't legally do it (apparently), the movement toward government regulation is gathering steam. Even the Alabamas, Michigans and Georgias are moving towards wanting it, not because they fear schools like Stanford will beat them out, but rather because each other might.

[Goose]

How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

IMO they all do :-). What they don't want is their competitors being able to do the same (or "worse"). NIL is one of those "ideas" that after a little experience in the "wild west" situation, "management" decides that regulation of some sort is desirable. Since the NCAA can't legally do it (apparently), the movement toward government regulation is gathering steam. Even the Alabamas, Michigans and Georgias are moving towards wanting it, not because they fear schools like Stanford will beat them out, but rather because each other might.

[jacket3ree]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

https://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-system.../21226287/

Any decision made by the Chapel Hill campus regarding their conference home can be overturned by the NC system governing board.  

They learned a lesson from the UCLA/Cal debacle…..

And, of course, the politics in NC are different.  I don’t see NC/NC State going in different directions.

If you peruse ACC boards and Bearinsider, there are some seemingly knowledgeable people including attorneys who practice in this area with good insight into this among posters pining to get back into the SEC or lamenting the 2013 or whenever invitation to the B1G that was rejected. Some opine that no one should read anything other than politics into anything coming out of the mouth of a UNC-CH Trustee.  Apparently they are mere figureheads/advisors to people making the real decisions regarding UNC. The Tarheels and Wolfpack are indeed tied at the hip. UNC isn't going anywhere without NC State. That doesn't quite square with the UNC-CH BOT voting against expansion along with FSU and Clemson. That seems like a real decision.

North Carolina is the lynchpin to the ACC's survival. They are the ACC and always have been.  But marginal greed is greed, so who knows?

I say toss FSU and Clemson out on their ungrateful assess, take their money, and hear the lamentations of their entitled fans wondering how they wound up in Conference USA.  At a minimum, there better be a favorable thumb on the scale in Dublin to open the season, for a stalwart member who is not making a spectacle of the conference and diminishing its value.  (I mean who knows what anyone is doing being the scenes, but still. suck it noles!)

The ACC just sued Clemson: This ain't no party; this ain't no disco. We aren't fooling around.

The ACC is not playing nice. This is existential. Member institutions met on Wednesday. Three-fourths of the 15 member institution (11.25 schools by math - there must be a reason they are not identifying the specific number of institutions rather than we met the quorum requirements) waived notice and more than two-thirds (10) voted to file the complaint. 

Since I'm used to reading and completely misunderstanding legal documents while snarfing at my desk and blowing Dorito dust from the keyboard, my takeaways are:

1. Having read many declarations, I know they are merely assertions for a tryer of fact to find the truth buried in there somewhere.

2. This boils down to freedom of contract and fair dealing. You aren't some rube who didn't understand the terms and conditions on a rental care rushing out of the airport. The agreements are written in plain language, your lawyers vetted this, your president signed it. Is there something you didn't understand or no longer understand?  I get it, you're from Clemson, but he's your president. His signature counts. Stand behind that signature. Or else. The ACC is accusing Clemson of acting in bad faith. I think this is setting up the possibility of kicking them out of the conference and taking their money. Or filing a tortuous something or another and taking three times all their money.

3. They open with a quote from Clemson's president and then-chair of the ACC Council of Presidents lauding the agreement they are now suing to get out of.  Start with the rank hypocrisy. Yeah, Clemson, what changed other than your level of greed?

4. Clemson has received a shit ton of money from this agreement, one they are co-responsible for as members of the conference and your dude was in charge when it was signed. Oh, and the agreed upon exit fee is a fraction of your annual revenue. Stop you bitching, give notice, write a check, and have fun rubbing your rock somewhere else.

5. The ACC's suit is simple. This will be decided in North Carolina, according to the statutes of the State of North Carolina. The complaint spends a lot of time detailing how long they've been in North Carolina and how many games and tournaments Clemson has played in North Carolina. They want a court to declare that the withdrawal payment is a valid and enforceable contract term, the GOR applies even if Clemson withdraws, Clemson can't collect checks all these years and then attack the very contract under the terms of which all those checks were cashed, Clemson owes a fiduciary duty to the conference as a member, the ACC has in fact been damaged by Clemson's breach of contract, and the conference has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Clemson's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

6. Clemson really does belong in the SEC. Matching ethos.  (Yeah, that's mine. Not in the law suit.)

I was really on the fence, but now I hope the ACC buries their ass so deep that FSU also slinks off into some other conference dirt poor while we keep their TV revenue and Carolina comes to their senses publicly.  Then get after jumping over the regional SEC and go toe to toe with the monolith. (Big Whatever They're Up To at a Given Point in Time)

[jacket3ree]

Having trouble posting a link from my phone but the UNC Board of Trustees released a very critical statement of the ACC that basically backed Clemson and threw the conference paupers under the bus. Sounds like the Tar Heels are next to follow the Noles and Tigers.

https://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-system.../21226287/

Any decision made by the Chapel Hill campus regarding their conference home can be overturned by the NC system governing board.  

They learned a lesson from the UCLA/Cal debacle…..

And, of course, the politics in NC are different.  I don’t see NC/NC State going in different directions.

If you peruse ACC boards and Bearinsider, there are some seemingly knowledgeable people including attorneys who practice in this area with good insight into this among posters pining to get back into the SEC or lamenting the 2013 or whenever invitation to the B1G that was rejected. Some opine that no one should read anything other than politics into anything coming out of the mouth of a UNC-CH Trustee.  Apparently they are mere figureheads/advisors to people making the real decisions regarding UNC. The Tarheels and Wolfpack are indeed tied at the hip. UNC isn't going anywhere without NC State. That doesn't quite square with the UNC-CH BOT voting against expansion along with FSU and Clemson. That seems like a real decision.

North Carolina is the lynchpin to the ACC's survival. They are the ACC and always have been.  But marginal greed is greed, so who knows?

I say toss FSU and Clemson out on their ungrateful assess, take their money, and hear the lamentations of their entitled fans wondering how they wound up in Conference USA.  At a minimum, there better be a favorable thumb on the scale in Dublin to open the season, for a stalwart member who is not making a spectacle of the conference and diminishing its value.  (I mean who knows what anyone is doing being the scenes, but still. suck it noles!)

The ACC just sued Clemson: This ain't no party; this ain't no disco. We aren't fooling around.

The ACC is not playing nice. This is existential. Member institutions met on Wednesday. Three-fourths of the 15 member institution (11.25 schools by math - there must be a reason they are not identifying the specific number of institutions rather than we met the quorum requirements) waived notice and more than two-thirds (10) voted to file the complaint. 

Since I'm used to reading and completely misunderstanding legal documents while snarfing at my desk and blowing Dorito dust from the keyboard, my takeaways are:

1. Having read many declarations, I know they are merely assertions for a tryer of fact to find the truth buried in there somewhere.

2. This boils down to freedom of contract and fair dealing. You aren't some rube who didn't understand the terms and conditions on a rental care rushing out of the airport. The agreements are written in plain language, your lawyers vetted this, your president signed it. Is there something you didn't understand or no longer understand?  I get it, you're from Clemson, but he's your president. His signature counts. Stand behind that signature. Or else. The ACC is accusing Clemson of acting in bad faith. I think this is setting up the possibility of kicking them out of the conference and taking their money. Or filing a tortuous something or another and taking three times all their money.

3. They open with a quote from Clemson's president and then-chair of the ACC Council of Presidents lauding the agreement they are now suing to get out of.  Start with the rank hypocrisy. Yeah, Clemson, what changed other than your level of greed?

4. Clemson has received a shit ton of money from this agreement, one they are co-responsible for as members of the conference and your dude was in charge when it was signed. Oh, and the agreed upon exit fee is a fraction of your annual revenue. Stop you bitching, give notice, write a check, and have fun rubbing your rock somewhere else.

5. The ACC's suit is simple. This will be decided in North Carolina, according to the statutes of the State of North Carolina. The complaint spends a lot of time detailing how long they've been in North Carolina and how many games and tournaments Clemson has played in North Carolina. They want a court to declare that the withdrawal payment is a valid and enforceable contract term, the GOR applies even if Clemson withdraws, Clemson can't collect checks all these years and then attack the very contract under the terms of which all those checks were cashed, Clemson owes a fiduciary duty to the conference as a member, the ACC has in fact been damaged by Clemson's breach of contract, and the conference has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Clemson's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

6. Clemson really does belong in the SEC. Matching ethos.  (Yeah, that's mine. Not in the law suit.)

I was really on the fence, but now I hope the ACC buries their ass so deep that FSU also slinks off into some other conference dirt poor while we keep their TV revenue and Carolina comes to their senses publicly.  Then get after jumping over the regional SEC and go toe to toe with the monolith. (Big Whatever They're Up To at a Given Point in Time)

[StanfordMatt]

How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

IMO they all do :-). What they don't want is their competitors being able to do the same (or "worse"). NIL is one of those "ideas" that after a little experience in the "wild west" situation, "management" decides that regulation of some sort is desirable. Since the NCAA can't legally do it (apparently), the movement toward government regulation is gathering steam. Even the Alabamas, Michigans and Georgias are moving towards wanting it, not because they fear schools like Stanford will beat them out, but rather because each other might.

I'm not intentionally picking the opposite side of all your posts, Goose, but I'll respectfully push back on this one, too.

The Wild West situation was what was going on for decades in the NCAA before the NIL era. The Wild West was SMU's Pony Express, USC's Reggie Bush and McDonalds bags stuffed with cash being shuttled around all across SEC campuses. If anything, NIL has simply brought daylight to the same type of transactions that have always been taking place and actually added an element of structure and regulation.

[StanfordMatt]

How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

IMO they all do :-). What they don't want is their competitors being able to do the same (or "worse"). NIL is one of those "ideas" that after a little experience in the "wild west" situation, "management" decides that regulation of some sort is desirable. Since the NCAA can't legally do it (apparently), the movement toward government regulation is gathering steam. Even the Alabamas, Michigans and Georgias are moving towards wanting it, not because they fear schools like Stanford will beat them out, but rather because each other might.

I'm not intentionally picking the opposite side of all your posts, Goose, but I'll respectfully push back on this one, too.

The Wild West situation was what was going on for decades in the NCAA before the NIL era. The Wild West was SMU's Pony Express, USC's Reggie Bush and McDonalds bags stuffed with cash being shuttled around all across SEC campuses. If anything, NIL has simply brought daylight to the same type of transactions that have always been taking place and actually added an element of structure and regulation.

[chrisk]

How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

IMO they all do :-). What they don't want is their competitors being able to do the same (or "worse"). NIL is one of those "ideas" that after a little experience in the "wild west" situation, "management" decides that regulation of some sort is desirable. Since the NCAA can't legally do it (apparently), the movement toward government regulation is gathering steam. Even the Alabamas, Michigans and Georgias are moving towards wanting it, not because they fear schools like Stanford will beat them out, but rather because each other might.

I'm not intentionally picking the opposite side of all your posts, Goose, but I'll respectfully push back on this one, too.

The Wild West situation was what was going on for decades in the NCAA before the NIL era. The Wild West was SMU's Pony Express, USC's Reggie Bush and McDonalds bags stuffed with cash being shuttled around all across SEC campuses. If anything, NIL has simply brought daylight to the same type of transactions that have always been taking place and actually added an element of structure and regulation.

Where is the structure and regulation of NIL? NBA has shut down the G-league Ignite team because it could not compete with NIL.

Should players who would rather not go to college be enticed by more money than they could make as a pro?

[chrisk]

How many schools really want to be able to use NIL in recruiting?

IMO they all do :-). What they don't want is their competitors being able to do the same (or "worse"). NIL is one of those "ideas" that after a little experience in the "wild west" situation, "management" decides that regulation of some sort is desirable. Since the NCAA can't legally do it (apparently), the movement toward government regulation is gathering steam. Even the Alabamas, Michigans and Georgias are moving towards wanting it, not because they fear schools like Stanford will beat them out, but rather because each other might.

I'm not intentionally picking the opposite side of all your posts, Goose, but I'll respectfully push back on this one, too.

The Wild West situation was what was going on for decades in the NCAA before the NIL era. The Wild West was SMU's Pony Express, USC's Reggie Bush and McDonalds bags stuffed with cash being shuttled around all across SEC campuses. If anything, NIL has simply brought daylight to the same type of transactions that have always been taking place and actually added an element of structure and regulation.

Where is the structure and regulation of NIL? NBA has shut down the G-league Ignite team because it could not compete with NIL.

Should players who would rather not go to college be enticed by more money than they could make as a pro?

[Spiny_Norman]

Where is the structure and regulation of NIL?  NBA has shut down the G-league Ignite team because it could not compete with NIL.

Should players who would rather not go to college be enticed by more money than they could make as a pro?

I am not a lawyer. But the statements by courts all the way up to and including the Supreme Court seem to indicate that they will not accept ANY restrictions on NIL which makes regulation almost impossible. Restrictions on NIL imply restraint of trade for the athletes and the courts are looking unfavorably on any action that limits the ability of college athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness.

Recent court decisions have basically legalized the unrestricted ability of boosters to pay players. We'll see how those boosters respond when a player takes their money then leaves for another school before suiting up at all for the first school (see: Kadyn Proctor).

[Spiny_Norman]

Where is the structure and regulation of NIL?  NBA has shut down the G-league Ignite team because it could not compete with NIL.

Should players who would rather not go to college be enticed by more money than they could make as a pro?

I am not a lawyer. But the statements by courts all the way up to and including the Supreme Court seem to indicate that they will not accept ANY restrictions on NIL which makes regulation almost impossible. Restrictions on NIL imply restraint of trade for the athletes and the courts are looking unfavorably on any action that limits the ability of college athletes to benefit from their name, image and likeness.

Recent court decisions have basically legalized the unrestricted ability of boosters to pay players. We'll see how those boosters respond when a player takes their money then leaves for another school before suiting up at all for the first school (see: Kadyn Proctor).

[Goose]

I'm not intentionally picking the opposite side of all your posts, Goose, but I'll respectfully push back on this one, too.

The Wild West situation was what was going on for decades in the NCAA before the NIL era. The Wild West was SMU's Pony Express, USC's Reggie Bush and McDonalds bags stuffed with cash being shuttled around all across SEC campuses. If anything, NIL has simply brought daylight to the same type of transactions that have always been taking place and actually added an element of structure and regulation.

No problem StanfordMatt. I am always willing to get new information and modify my opinion accordingly. I am aware that "payola" existed in the past, but it was not ubiquitous. It had to be very much on the down-low. If you got caught, there were sanctions applied (arguably not to the guilty parties, but to the institution). More importantly, even if you payed somebody to transfer to your school, they had to sit out a year. That made such transactions fairly unattractive to all involved. All of this is no longer the case. It is IMO clearly a "wilder west".

[Goose]

I'm not intentionally picking the opposite side of all your posts, Goose, but I'll respectfully push back on this one, too.

The Wild West situation was what was going on for decades in the NCAA before the NIL era. The Wild West was SMU's Pony Express, USC's Reggie Bush and McDonalds bags stuffed with cash being shuttled around all across SEC campuses. If anything, NIL has simply brought daylight to the same type of transactions that have always been taking place and actually added an element of structure and regulation.

No problem StanfordMatt. I am always willing to get new information and modify my opinion accordingly. I am aware that "payola" existed in the past, but it was not ubiquitous. It had to be very much on the down-low. If you got caught, there were sanctions applied (arguably not to the guilty parties, but to the institution). More importantly, even if you payed somebody to transfer to your school, they had to sit out a year. That made such transactions fairly unattractive to all involved. All of this is no longer the case. It is IMO clearly a "wilder west".