Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Bull Matrix]

6 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

Keep it coming.  That's the fun of this thread.

It has been crazy lately. USF is being pulling left & right in tons of conference realignment rumors. Seems we have both the ACC & PAC fans hoping USF is invited soon.

[Mission9]

59 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Never seen the show either but have seen enough of Ted Lasso to last a lifetime ….

Isn't he a member and contributor to this board?

[flsportsfan83]

3 minutes ago, Mission9 said:

Isn't he a member and contributor to this board?

yes he posts as often as Deion Sanders and Taylor Swift.

[Triple B]

13 minutes ago, Mission9 said:

Isn't he a member and contributor to this board?

He is a member …. yes. 

[puc86]

13 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

Two-thirds voting is referenced three times in that document. Twice as it relates to the Athletic Director Committee (which wouldn't have the authority to dissolve the conference) and once  The Board Executive Committee is composed of 6 individuals and they can only vote on things that the Board of Directors could approve on their own by vote of a simple majority. In that instance, it would take 2/3rds of the BEC to approve. I have to imagine that dissolution requires a minimum of 2/3rds of the entire BOD and the BOD is the only body that can vote to dissolve. This document doesn't seem to address that. 

Correct but this is the only publicly available document I am aware of that addresses voting in the AAC. Based on it and that it seems pretty consistent in structure and that to accomplish a board level action takes 2/3rds it seems that is the most likely number. My assumption on why someone would think 50% is based on if you looked at the table of contents many people would end up on the section about legislation. If someone can get the bylaws mentioned in  this document we can no for sure but my search came up empty on them and corrects to ACC because no one cares enough to leak and host that information. It does not appear to be on the AAC public portion of the website.

[Mission9]

25 minutes ago, Bull Matrix said:

It has been crazy lately. USF is being pulling left & right in tons of conference realignment rumors. Seems we have both the ACC & PAC fans hoping USF is invited soon.

So, given what has happened on the field the last couple of years, do they desire a good Homecoming opponent?

[puc86]

1 hour ago, Bull Matrix said:

Is this Ted Lasso a good coach ?? Puc approves?? ….Wow!!

I like good things, it is just hard to see given the one thing we talk about

[USF_Bullsharks]

1 hour ago, Jim Johnson said:

Apple did not "let them walk" -- the tech company was simply not going to guarantee a number that would satisfy Oregon and Washington to move to all-streaming (or at least "streaming first") contracts.

Plus, let's not forget that Larry Scott promised a similar "tiered" package for the Pac 12 networks that never came true.  So Oregon, Washington, and others were in the mindset of "fool me twice..."

 

ESPN offered the PAC the same deal ($/yrs) that the B12 accepted. The PAC asked for $50mm/yr/school and was obviously rejected. Not sure how much manipulation was involved by USCLA to reject the deal because they were bolting for B1G (taking a play out of Pitt/Cuse' Big East playbook). 

Eerily similar, the Big East was negotiating their TV deal immediately following the PAC getting their new deal - and this time around, the PAC found themselves on the tail end of the B1G's TV deal. Long term deals provide stability... but it seems like as long as you are first to the negotiating window, and subsequently close the deal before your rival/peer conference, is where you truly have stability. The ACC going for an ultra-long term deal is also biting them in the ass now. Conference realignment will surely be taught as case studies in business schools in the future. Will be really interesting to see how the ACC turns out over the next 13 years. 

[GoBulls84]

11 minutes ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

ESPN offered the PAC the same deal ($/yrs) that the B12 accepted. The PAC asked for $50mm/yr/school and was obviously rejected. Not sure how much manipulation was involved by USCLA to reject the deal because they were bolting for B1G (taking a play out of Pitt/Cuse' Big East playbook). 

Eerily similar, the Big East was negotiating their TV deal immediately following the PAC getting their new deal - and this time around, the PAC found themselves on the tail end of the B1G's TV deal. Long term deals provide stability... but it seems like as long as you are first to the negotiating window, and subsequently close the deal before your rival/peer conference, is where you truly have stability. The ACC going for an ultra-long term deal is also biting them in the ass now. Conference realignment will surely be taught as case studies in business schools in the future. Will be really interesting to see how the ACC turns out over the next 13 years. 

I may be misremembering, but I believe the $30M a year offer came AFTER USC and UCLA announced they were leaving for the B1G. That's why it was so insane for the remaining Pac schools to demand $50M a year. The difference in the Big East deal is we had the same viable product going to open market that declined the ESPN deal, and thus ESPN set out to devalue that product by pushing the ACC and Pitt/Syracuse to come together. They couldn't have the egg on their face of losing the Big East (especially basketball) product to another network for more money than they were paying. In the Pac's case, they absolutely should have taken the $30M offer and spent the next several years building up the value of the remaining conference to get more money down the line

[USF_Bullsharks]

You are probably right, however, I really enjoy the irony in my story so I'm sticking to it