In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Uhh...they're already going to the ACC. Even if they didn't have that deal inked I don't think they would ever jump at a deal that would put their non-revenue sports in a league with Seton Hall, St. John's and DePaul.
the "catholic" conference principle kinda makes sense... so if that is your blueprint... the question is whats the number.... 11 would give you a 20 conference round robin...
I am assuming that villanova would say no to adding st.joes..... both being in philly...
so Dayton, Xavier, St.Louis and Crieghton
Maybe they can make a "Catholic Division" in the ACC?
Formerly Venomous Green Duck. Join Date: Nov. 2004 # of posts: 17,867.
Good call. My fault
I doubt Villanova would complain about adding St. Joe's. They already play every year as part of the Philly "Big 5."
The RCMB...is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet.
Good point about UMass. What's left of the Big East is a more likely landing spot for them now. From an appeal standpoint, I'd like St. Joe's to be the additional eastern school, but I don't think Villanova will want that.
It's not about whether they want to play them. Florida plays FSU every year, but they don't want them in their conference. They don't want to share the territory. The same would be said for Villanova. It changes the recruiting landscape if they're both in the same conference.
Anyway, it's probably not in the new league's best interest, in terms of TV markets. They already have the Philly market with Nova. They would want to focus on getting another market if they can.
That's why I tried to shoehorn UMass in there, for the Boston TV market (not that UMass really moves the needle). But since UMass has football aspirations, they're not a fit.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Achtung Baby 19 months ago
I doubt that would hold up in court.
Cincy or Uconn to join the BIG?
It's a contract that was voted on an approved by every member of the Big 12 as part of their TV deal. If Texas wants to go west, they are free...but they forfit all of their TV money to the Big 12 until 2025. You really think any school is dumb enough to do that?Thus the Big 12 is much more stable then the ACC because of this contract. The PAC 12 and Big 10 has similar deals and the SEC is working on a similar contract.
This post was edited by tJYD 19 months ago
12177 Post before moving here. 10/29/11 will live forever in our hearts (plus 50 votes in the last 3 hours)
UConn has a very slim chance....No way in Hades Cincy will ever get an invite. Academics are terrible and Cincy is a communter school if I recall correctly.
Xavier and Dayton are a package deal, there's 9. That would result in a 16 game round robin schedule. Add Bultler or Saint Lous for 10 and an 18 game schedule? Creighton has eyes elsewhere.
As for ND and the comment about non revenue sports, DePaul and ST. John's are quite strong in those, softball for DePaul, Soccer and Baseball for ST. John's with lacrosse getting stronger.
This post was edited by Enrico Palazzo 19 months ago
"If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais
Add St. Louis (another Catholic school) for 10. Then you have a conference of 10 Catholic schools. What they should do then (if they are inventive enough) is move outside of sports and form a "CIC-esque" consortium between them. It doesn't necessarily have to be a carbon copy of what the B1G has, but some sort of academic consortium would work perfectly here because you would have 10 like-minded Catholic institutions that share similar ideals and goals.
Where is Creighton looking?
It can be found unenforceable if a court finds it to be unreasonable and punitive instead of being structured as a damages for leaving.
Forfeiting TV money for over a decade could easily be found unenforceable.
Go with 10. 18 game conference round robin. Or go with 12 and play in divisions.
On the same hand, no school was forced to sign the contract.
If the TV contract was contingent on all schools signing it then it sounds like schools were forced to me. If a school were to hold out their life would have made hell by the conference.
I'm not a lawyer, if you are I guess I'll have to take your word for it and agree with you but I really doubt that contract would be enforceable.
It doesn't matter. We already know there's a contract. What matters is the enforceability of the clause. If a court finds it punitive, it's gone. Forfeiting over a decade of TV revenue is highly dubious.
The is no penalty. The conference just owns the 1st and 2nd tier rights until the contract expires.
It was done to get a better deal. Without it, the Big 12s contract would be far less then what they got.
Bottom line is the Big 12 is far more stable then the ACC because of it.
For those that say Texas could still go to the PAC 12, you just don't know how stubborn Deloss Dodds and William Powers are about the Longhorn Network.
I don't think you understand the meaning of penalty here. It's a term of art. Losing those rights- which are worth millions of dollars- for over a decade is nowhere near a reasonable amount of money to pay as damages for leaving the conference. It's probably closer to insane than it is reasonable. Consequently, it is likely an unenforceable penalty instead of reasonable liquidated damages.
Hell, it's probably more unreasonable than Maryland's exit fee ($52 million) from the ACC which is equivalent to 3 times the ACC's entire annual operating expenses.
This post was edited by Jud Owns Digger 19 months ago
Then don't sign the contract.
That is not why I brought up GoR. I brought up GoR to inform people why the Big 12 is in a better position then the ACC in being the 4th major conference. Also, as I stated above, people have no clue how stubborn UT-Austin is about the Lonhhorn Network as the Big 12 is the only conference that can allow it by conference by laws, thanks to the GoR. And as long Texas stays, no one is leaving the current set up. Kansas is making a nice chunk thanks to the KU Digital Network. OU and Okie Lite is about to launch their own networks in the next 18 months.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by tJYD 19 months ago
How about you learn the law instead. Clauses in contracts are held unenforceable every day even though parties agree on the terms
The ACC stands to be pillaged if Maryland gets their way..
Difference is Maryland never agreed to the 50 million dollar buyout. On top of it, the ACC is trying to get Pitt, Cuse and ND in next year, and more then likely will settle with Maryland on exit fees.
You are arguing about something that will never come up thanks to how the Big 12 GoR is structured ( ie school networks.) If you still think Texas is still likely to head to the PAC 12, get a new brain.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports