This is new information. Per FSU, ESPN is not guaranteed to pay ACC members revenue past 2027, but the ACC schools are locked into a grant of rights that runs through 2036. https://t.co/0ezj1Xjc2l— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) December 22, 2023
Oooh boy if this is true, this conference is even more fucked than we thought.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Well there's ESPN's motivation for letting the conference implode. They can just have the SEC pick who they want if the GOR is broken.
Absolutely right, I can't imagine why ESPN would ever extend that contract.
I can- the ACC pulls a Whit Babcock with Nike and gets on their knees and extends the already worst P5 apparel deal for the same money. Exact same scenario here.
This. From a business standpoint ESPN would absolutely want to extend the deal since its already significantly discounted compared to the Big 10 and SEC. That is unless there is something in the clause that has some financial stipulations that would require them to raise their payout to the ACC.
If they extend the existing deal they have to keep paying us the same amount, if the deal blows up they don't have to pay us squat.
Meaning either way, ESPN wins and the ACC loses.
Well potentially we could do something similar to the Apple TV deal that Kliavkoff almost had the P12 do, but it wouldn't be as much as ESPN is giving us unless we get a ton of streamers.
I honestly think the ACC should say fuck ESPN and take a pay cut to do business with someone else. TV is dying anyway this model of revenue probably will not exist in the same form by 2030. But the law of always maximizing short term games regardless of long term outlook will not let this happen
There might be a built in rider to increase 10% or something, but that is still a significant discount.
I would assume so... if there isn't then the ACC leadership is even dumber than I already thought.
A bargain ACC is only a bargain if they gain $ from it. If ESPN thinks all the big ad money is in a super conference SEC, well....
It's pretty fucking obvious they've been operating with intent to destabilize and destroy the conference to minimize the value of the next contract, even if the GoR proves to be airtight and a FSU cannot leave.
What fucking bullshit. Fuck ESPN, they've been colluding with the SEC the entire time and now that this comes out you have a very clear motive. Look no further than the 3 hour SEC infomercial they turned the ACC Championship Game into this year. Fucking scum stabbed us in the back to meet their own needs.
Fuck ESPN. Fuck everyone who works for ESPN, especially that corporate whore, Kirk Herbstreit, who has been most front and center pushing the agenda this year.
Kirk Herbstreit can go eat a bag of dicks.
Lol yup, complete hypocritical corporate whore
Fuck Herbstreit.
Correct - as I pointed out- When there is no competition for a TV partner, ESPN can and has simply chosen to pay one league 40% more than the other- for roughly the same product. That is 100% unsustainable in any world. ESPN decides who wins and who loses. There is no legitimate competition the ACC can leverage. This is no different than if the AFC negotiated an NBC package 40% larger than the NFC and NBC is the only network. The NFC would be pissed and sue into oblivion.
Grounds for Antitrust lawsuit?
Suppose ESPN's not-so-invisible-hand breaks up the ACC, adds VT/UVA/Carolina publics to the SEC for a 20 team league. Would you be that pissed? That would be a huge net positive for VT IMO.
Yes because it's only a matter of time until that invisible hand comes for your throat. If ESPN is willing to cut the throat of the ACC, a league they desperately wanted 25 years ago, there is nothing stopping them from changing priorities to slit the throat of any undesirable schools within the SEC going forward to further consolidate power and money
Suppose the super-duper 16-team-blueblood-only league happens in 2030. At that point, it doesn't matter if VT is in the SEC or a functional ACC, does it? IMO, the answer is no.
The ACC needs to start discussions with Amazon and YouTube and make sure to include the basketball rights. Does is suck - yes but the other traditional networks aren't going to cash up and the streaming services are dying for live content.
Hard to start up discussions when all E$PN has to do is say yes and we are stuck. Everyone thought GoR deal was biggest screw up by ACC but it's pretty clear by this that the biggest was the contract ACC leadership signed using the GoR.
Lol yeah ESPN has way too much fucking control over this sport
Combine all of these discoveries with seeing how the network has absolutely gone out of it's way the past few years to actively shit on the ACC in order to prop up the SEC culminating in the embarrassment of a SEC infomercial they turned the ACC Championship Game into, I think there might be grounds here for the ACC member institutions to sue the shit out of ESPN for breach of contract.
This is the most logical lawsuit out of all of the ones discussed. I think there is a preponderance of evidence to show ESPN has actively worked at diminishing the value of the ACC.
I feel that they are probably hopeless beating the GOR but maybe something could be found to sue ESPN for antitrust/breach of contract which might force them to renegotiate? But if ESPN gets busted up will anyone come calling that would actually be able to pay more? IDK MAN........
I think you could take ESPN to the cleaners if you are able to prove this and sue them for damages. Remember, at the time of ACC Expansion in 2004, ESPN hyped up the ACC to be at least on par with the SEC, with many calling it a new football superconference, so if you can prove they actively harmed us to prop up the SEC while holding down payments to the ACC, you could absolutely sue them (Disney) to make every ACC school whole. And if you can prove they were conspiring with the SEC to do it, and you'd have a pretty decent chance at doing that, you could tie clauses to every SEC school that they are financially obligated to cover those costs as well. At the very least, such a lawsuit could end up completely dismantling the financial dynamic currently in play and obliterate the current landscape.
My god if this ever actually happened
I think if that happened, Disney would declare ESPN bankrupt say it happened under their management not ours and divorce themselves of the mess.
Absolutely. This really fuels the narrative that ESPN just locked up the ACC long-term at a bargain in order to squash it.
Ok, so every team needs to paint other network logos on the field for the next three years to persuade ESPN to drop the contract in 2027. Fans should make those signs with ESPN but like:
Extraordinarily
Shitty
Penitentiary
Network
and hang them over the front of the stands during games. Make it clear we aren't happy and are willing to sour the broadcast for ESPN until they renegotiate out drop the contract.
This lawsuit has the potential to get really nasty. No doubt the discovery is going to absolutely tear into the Swofford-era and look at any malfeasance or breach of fiduciary duties. And as the complaint alleges, the ACC forcing the signing of a GoR until 2036 with a deal that really expires after 2027 is not acting in good faith at all. I'm starting to think this might be the beginning of the end of the ACC and the path out for several members. I can understand the sentiment that FSU is whining and crying after knowingly signing that deal, but everyone did - they were basically forced to and assured the ACC/ESPN were acting in their best interest. The country club ACC might be heading for the end, and I wonder if ESPN might be the next target of some of this litigation.
GOR through 2036 just ensures the league can negotiate a good long-term deal if ESPN chooses not to exercise their option.
Is there any reason to assume Fox, CBS or NBC would not be interested in the ACC? We need to have teams step up. But if FSU stays where they are, Clemson rebounds and we get back to 9-10 win seasons (which is being optimistic, but not unreasonable) would think we would get some interest.
ESPN has definitely been deliberately devaluing the ACC, for what I can only assume are reasons.
It's like we've said before, when they pull the old just win more like the SEC does hyuk hyuk hyuhh nonsense, it's really offputting. The call is coming from inside the Mouse.
They have pumped up the SEC because they have to pay them more. Keeping us down means they can renew our contract for little increase.
I need an impartial lawyer to distill this for me. I find it hard to believe that ACC leadership agreed to a deal where all revenue could be forgone for nearly a decade. I have to imagine there's something that says ESPN can resell the rights or something. I can't imagine this deal is 'ESPN can keep renting this property for 10 years for free just cuz'
From what I understand, our Grant of Rights is a binding agreement that grants all the TV rights of individual schools to the ACC until 2036, allowing rh conference to negotiate and secure whatever TV they can get, but the current deal only lasts til 2027. The ACC still needs to secure a deal for 2027-36, and ESPN has the first option to just extend what they already have, else it goes for open bidding.
That's basically the gist of everything I have seen. And also I read elsewhere that the ACC has sent ESPN requests for the extension as of 2021 but they have been ignored. ESPN has overcommitted to other contracts and is in bad financial shape as is, so they're going to wait until the last minute to extend. It's a unilateral option solely at ESPN's discretion from what I've seen.
The purported reason it was extended to 2036 even though current TV deal ends in 2027 was ESPN demanded the option out to 2036 to go through the costs of establishing the ACC Network.
I kind of call BS on E$PN being faced with high costs for setting up ACCN because as part of the deal, each school was required to set up broadcasting capabilities on campus for ACCN use. I also believe setting up the main broadcasting facility came from ACC headquarters expenses which budget comes out of ESPN money for the most part. They basically got a ten year extra guarantee with nominal increase in payouts AND got the ACC to pay for most of the setup anyway.
I'm starting to think the higher ups at the ACC may not be the greatest negotiators in the world...
It's not just the ACC leaders; it's the school presidents. 15 of them agreed to this.
Got it! So basically:
FSU is saying that because espn encouraged the ACC teams to band together, but is no longer broadcasting acc games, that FSU should be able to leave the conference.
Do I understand?
I mean kind of? But the jist of their main argument is basically that they don't like the deal they're in, and as such it should be invalidated. They have no real smoking gun, they have no real strategy. They threw everything they could at the wall hoping that something would stick, when in reality they're just airing their own frustrations with little to no legal standing behind any of their claims
They're hoping the PR will spin to the point where the ACC just caves and gives them what they want, not realizing just how desperate the ACC is going to be to not cave, because if they lose this, the ACC almost immediately dies, and the schools with some of the best law schools are going to be negatively impacted the most. And seeing the ACC sue FSU on Thursday before the meeting shows just how prepared they are to fight this with everything they have.
Its been discussed, reviewed ad nauseam that the GOR is a steaming pile of minutia. That has been well established.
So, with lawsuits now rearing their ugly heads, the end result will force a renegotiation, as all involved will understand that if they don't legal costs will only perpetuate eternally, therefore, let's construct a suitable contract for all to win????
Do these actions force that hand? Everyone gives and gets? Thus, the ACC remains intact and has a more competitive contract?
First of all, no it hasn't. Secondly, every legal expert who has actually taken a look at it says it's pretty damn airtight which is why neither Clemson nor FSU have tried to challenge it, and why the only evidence that FSU is proposing in this filing is basically a 38 page long "this isn't fair" complaint.
There is no smoking gun, there is no ironclad reason why FSU isn't bound by the GoR, if there was, they would have provided it. Hell, they used Maryland as an example of why they shouldn't pay while conveniently ignoring that the 2013 (and consequently the 2016 agreement) was agreed to and revised by all member institutions, including Florida State, as a direct response to it to ensure another school couldn't leave without paying the price. And they signed it.
Odd to use Maryland as an example of why they shouldn't pay, since Maryland paid to leave.
Quite the opposite. The GoR's strength is that is so vague. It's only 4 pages long. It's so vague, that it's not even clear in what jurisdiction it should be challenged.
Possibly a poor of choice of word or how I was using it. I meant people have read the GOR from word one to word done which in turn consumed all aspects (details = minutia). A number from this site alone has read the GOR cover to cover. That is what I was referring as well established. The topic has been thoroughly discussed on TKP and continues to do so. And have concluded that it sucks.
I have not read it as I feel many here have and are well versed. Maybe I will, but as the to the vagueness, this to me would open the door to loose interpretations that can lead to lengthy litigations? This leads back to my original question. I don't think either side wants to get involved with a lengthy, "never ending" litigation as it could possibly snow ball and get very ugly = expensive AF. No one wins. So, redo the contract where all can swallow, chew and digest.
In closing. The GOR is airtight but vague (not sure how it can be both) it would best serve me to read it. At this point, my prediction is there will be enough quasi credible to BS level litigation to work through that in time will lead to what I am saying above. If so, the ACC remains and in better shape.
If not, then the other two options remain. 1) get left out of whatever the new Power Whatever looks like (IMO, not likely) or be a part of the new whatever the Power Whatever looks like (IMO, most likely)
Ah, I see - yes I agree. If you're interested in reading, here's a copy from 2013. Presumably, it's exactly the same as the 2016 version.
If you're wondering why the short length makes it difficult to handle, here's a good piece from a few years ago that touches on that. One excerpt that I like from the piece:
So, that's a little overstated. Choice of jurisdiction and choice of law isn't omitted as a feature to add complexity. An employer will put in a choice of law clause because it knows the laws of the state and it prefers them. And the employee has no bargaining power so it must agree to that choice. The Athletic is a Bay Area tech company, so California law would be the choice.
Choice of law and jurisdiction for the GoR contract would be ideal for clarity, but this is an agreement among entities of about ten states. Choice of law is hard to pick when 10 different choices are available and each entity prefers their own state. Furthermore, there are states that have laws that do not allow their public entities (including universities) sign a contract with choice of law of a different state. It would be expected that choice of law remain silent in the GoR
That said, it is correct that it will need to be the first decision of the courts and will take a few months to get settled.
Litigation over choice of law will be so inexpensive in the grand scheme of this as to be rendered virtually meaningless. A tenth of one percent of the cost of litigation and the potential damages/overall impact.
That is obviously a critically important issue, but not a feature at all from a cost prohibitive standpoint. A drop in the bucket.
The issue here is the ACC has a bunch of academics who are divorced from reality and couldn't have fumbled this worse if they tried.
The GOR is not airtight. It's quite poorly written. Actually embarassing that a confernce with limitless resources apparently didnt have a single school that actually paid a halfway decent lawyer to push back. More likely, they didn't have the leverage to do it, because they allowed the Swofford nepotism to go on so long that they lost all leverage. When we joined the ACC, it had the best TV deal of any conference. Then Raycom got involved and we never recovered.
This GOR has been crap from the start. The issue was which team would finally have the motivation to challenge it. Enter Florida State. I hope they're successful.
Are you a lawyer?
Yes, actually.
Nice! Was genuinely curious given your strong opinion.
I'm not saying FSU will be successful in their challenge. And, I don't mean to sound overly optimistic. But, contract law only varies so much from state to state. The bigger point I wanted to make is that the legal filings associated with that kind of argument aren't that difficult or time consuming. They can iron out which state's law applies without too much expense, relatively speaking. And, even if a Florida court concluded, for example, that North Carolina law applied, that isn't the end of the world.
Now, as to the substance, there are arguments to be made as to why the GOR isn't enforceable. Obviously, filing in Florida, all things being equal could give FSU a leg up.
Let's see what happens. Will be interesting.
Going to need you to keep bringing the 🔥 explanations regarding this as things progress. Nice having someone that can break down the minutia for someone not at all associated with law.
Thanks. I've finally had an opportunity to review the complaint.
A couple things stand out. In no particular order:
1) The ACC looks bad. What at first I thought was just incompetence now has shades of malfeasance and self-preservation. Florida State gives several examples, from the lack of consideration to enter the GOR, to Jim Phillips executing an "amendment" he wasn't authorized to execute to give ESPN more time, to the addition of Stanford, Cal, SMU making it harder to break the grant of rights rather than increasing revenue (something i mentioned on here at the time), to lying about an ultimatum from ESPN to coerce members into signing, to not allowing members to have copies of the GOR thereafter, etc. It is a long list.
2) FSU didn't just hire some FSU Homer who might be decent in Florida state courts. They're represented by Greenberg Traurig. That is a global law firm with almost 3k attorneys. They aren't cheap. Some folks can quibble with whether "big law" is always the best choice in state court, but that is a good firm. I've litigated against them before. And, this case is unlikely to proceed to a trial by a jury anyway. These are legal issues to be decided by the court. Point being, FSU's lawyers are legit. I wouldn't just summarily dismiss them as sour grapes as many have done.
3) They have cited to prior litigation against Maryland in North Carolina state court (including the court of appeals) categorizing the withdrawal fees and grant of rights as a "penalty". That was a savvy move. I said in one of our other threads a while back that is what I would've done. Here is an excerpt from 3 paragraphs (148-150) in that count of the complaint and why it's relevant:
"148. The Severe ACC Withdrawal Penalty and the ACC GofR were not designed to, and do not, approximate any injury to the enterprise from a withdrawal, but rather were contrived
as punitive penalties to be held over the heads of ACC members in terrorem to deprive those members of their lone remedy from enterprise mismanagement -withdrawal.
149. The potential damage suffered by the ACC by a withdrawing member is wholly
disproportional to the punitive penalties the ACC seeks to levy.
150. The Severe ACC Withdrawal Penalty and the ACC GofR, both collectively and
individually, are penalties not enforceable under Florida law."
Basically, the argument is that the withdrawal fees and grant of rights are more of a "penalty" to Florida State to prohibit them from leaving as opposed to any reasonable approximation of the harm their departure would cause to the ACC.
This is the argument I identified a few years ago when everyone was saying "the GOR is so ironclad that every school has had their lawyers look at it and nobody can figure out a way to break it" - total BS. Just reporters spouting off about something they knew nothing about. As it turns out, unless you drove to ACC HQ, you couldn't even review the document, much less keep a copy. That's pretty shady and suggests unconscionability in its own right.
4) The complaint invokes arguments that raise antitrust and restraint of trade implications under Florida law. That is a little outside my wheelhouse these days, but it's a common issue in sports law. Another savvy move. No surprise that was the first "count" in the 7-count complaint.
5) FSU is asking the Court to invalidate the agreements so as to deem their notice of withdrawal effective as of August 2023. That's a creative argument. Not sure it will work, but the point is, they're serious about wanting out.
6) They allege the ACC breached fiduciary duties. This is a tough argument, but they make some decent points.
This will be interesting. I'll do my best to keep up, but I don't always have time given my own caseload.
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.
Go Hokies,
This is great information. I have some questions, it would amazing if you answer them whenever you have time (be it this week or later in 2024).
Why is this a counter argument that would (contribute to) invalidating the GoR? Isn't the point of a penalty to dissuade someone from breaking an agreement?
Also, for the last couple years, FSU has been beating the drum that they are the (main) reason/driver for ACC viewership - feels like, if what FSU had previously publicly alleged is true, then penalty is proportionate to their value to the league? Can't have it both ways?
If the ACC did none of the malfeasance you alluded to above, would the GoR be more 'iron clad'?
Finally, if FSU wins, does this invalidate all GoRs in college athletics, or is this specifically stuff the ACC did wrong?
Let me tackle the unconscionable "penalty" issue first with a rather silly analogy and then I'll try to come back to the others after tonight's prime rib 😋
Suppose I agree to buy your house for $400k. We put a clause in there that says "with the rapid changes in the market, it's difficult to say exactly how much seller would be harmed if buyer breaches the contract (i.e. backs out of the deal). So, in the event that buyer does so, he must pay seller $300k as a reasonable estimate of "liquidated damages.""
Suppose then that I do back out, and you sell the house to someone else for the Xmas day special of $375k. You "lost" about $25k in profit.
The argument would be that the $300k "fee" was far more than necessary to "make you whole" and instead operated as penalty to keep me from ever walking away from the deal.
The law frowns upon unreasonable penalties disguised as damages estimates, and in some cases will allow the court to invalidate all or part of the contract on that basis.
Coming back in here...
I don't think the ACCs malfeasance or lack thereof is dispositive. At least not completely. If shown to be true, I think it would help on a few of the counts, particularly the breach of fiduciary duty count. The other count/argument is Count III. The argument is basically that the ACC breached first, therefore Florida State is excused from its obligations under those agreements, including the obligation to give notice of withdrawal and pay the penalty.
I also don't think this gets rid of the entire concept of Grant of Rights. Courts only decide the cases before them. Cases are fact specific. The other conferences and their agreements are likely to be quite different than the ACC. That's not to say this wouldn't be persuasive, but courts in other states will not be bound by anything the Florida court decides. So, they very well could hear a very similar argument and reach the opposite conclusion for another school/conference.
My understanding is this is not true... The ACC GoR was almost identical to the B12's last GoR (the one Texas and OU paid $80m to break one year early).
Anyways, the trend I'm starting to see (and I think you alluded to this above) is that any 'contract' in the college athletics space that prevents a player/coach/team/conference/etc from moving to a difference school/team/conference will likely be overridden by antitrust law if challenged in courts. It feels to me like it's impossible for college sports to maintain any sense of stability/normalcy unless the NCAA gets an anti-trust exemption. Do you agree, or am I reading way to much into this?
Saw an interesting thought; why does the acc need to file a suit as well if they're so confident that the GOR is air tight? Why couldn't they just show up and expect to have an open shut defense of an airtight agreement
they want the case heard in NC
Ahhh so it gives them a chance to have the case in the stage it was filed; got it
Of course they do - they want to hometown FSU and subject them to good old boy NC homecooking. Same as FSU does obvi, so it's a race to determine the venue.
The exit fee is one year's operating expense; not a specific amount. FSU was part of the group that put that language in place after the conference went to court with Maryland. It is what it is and withdrawing isn't cost prohibitive for FSU. And even if it were reduced to zero, they still couldn't afford to leave
The big number in the suit is one that FSU made up to gain attention (and perhaps try to establish as an upper limit), and then spin as punitive; a classic red herring. Fact is there is no amount or formula that has been specified in the conference bylaws; and there isn't anything to suggest they can reacquire the rights for any amount big or small. The problem is it was a grant of the rights and they are the property of the conference until 2036. The conference might elect to sell them to FSU, or not; it would likely take a 2/3 or 3/4 vote.
Note TX and OU both paid the full market value of the rights to reacquire them and leave ONE year early; but only AFTER the conference got a new TV contract. Until the conference was happy about their future, those rights were staying with the Big 12. Do you think ESPN will re-do the ACC's TV contract to do that for FSU? Given the war between Disney and Tallahassee, I doubt it.
FSU wants this to lead to a negotiation and I'm not saying they can't or won't get there; but I think the ACC will start out saying that the rights are simply not for sale.
Finally, all members voted to keep the TV contract and GOR out of the public eye. I Sunshined FSU for the conference bylaws, GOR and TV contract 3 years ago. Even I knew they didn't have them in house. That decision by the conference is a feature, not a flaw; and FSU is and has been a party to all of that.
If only we had someone to iron it out
The GoR's strength is not due to vagueness, but due to the strong and clear language it includes on the media rights.
Most ludicrous minutia I've ever heard
Doesn't really impact GoR but if true it appears Phillips violated ACC bylaws by approving a 4 year extension for E$PN to decide on exercising their option for 2027 to 2036. Was supposed to be confirmed in 2021 but extension gives them until 2025 to exercise the option.
If true that JP exercised authority above what the ACC by-laws granted, that seems to be a point around which the ESPN contract extension could be ruled null and void.
Random but damn if even an inkling of truth and could be proved...
I don't think they are
1. This desperate to make it happen
2. Dumb enough to have done it
Probably just mudslinging bs but oh the fireworks this would generate.
I will say, it's a bit odd that Bowers and Mims (both projected to go in the top 20) are planning on playing.
Edit to add: as much as I'd love for this to be true, and for it to be proven and somehow lead to espns downfall, I think a)it sounds very conspiratorial and b) even if it's true, how will anyone prove it and will enough people even care to make it a big enough deal?
Florida State should just refuse to show up. It's a no win situation for them. If they win it'll be because georgia didn't care or some other bullshit. If they lose it'll validate them being left out. So, they might as well stick it to espn and just not show up. Wtf is espn going to do if there's no game to cover?
Uga players would probably prefer that. They could skip the game and go party on south beach.
You've gone off the deep end bruh
I don't think it's true but it' would be chaos in the ACC which would be fun to watch. I am in the viewing seats for the deep end.
Fuck ES(EC)PN!
How does ESPNBet work with ESPN being so embedded in the broadcasting of college football and other sports? I am sure they worked out all the legal specifics but makes you curious how they can set moneylines with all their inside knowledge and what level of separation there is to not exert influence on a result.
Why does inside information prohibit setting money lines or other point spreads? Vegas has had insiders for years, with possibly more knowledge to help them do just that.
The question about about whether or not outcomes are being influenced is a better one. When bets were just on final outcomes of games the delineation was clear and the only people who could influence the outcome were the officials and the players and coaches of the teams playing. Now, with bets about who makes the playoffs (if ESPN is offering those), that becomes a grey area if they are truly influencing the outcomes of the "playoff committee" as a lot of people suspect they are.
However, knowing what we know now, any bet to make the playoff is a suckers bet, knowing that ESPN might influence the decision to minimize losses on some of those bets.
Looks like ESPN is all aboard the 'destroy the ACC's reputation' train
If you go by KenPom then there is no way Big Ten has that many. The last 3 B10 teams to get in are ranked after the 7th ACC team.
The 9th SEC team is ranked close to VT. With the next two lowest SEC teams being ranked lower than the 7th ACC team.
They are also screwing the BE too. The real screw job is the Big 12. They have 9 teams in the top 40 of KenPom. No other conference comes close to that.
So far they have the Pac 12 just about right.
Big12 has been the low-key best basketball conference the past 2 years.
It's low-key because the talking heads don't talk about it.
Lunardi is absolutely going wild with this narrative that the ACC is dying when every metric about postseason play explicitly shows that the conference has been performing as the best in the nation this decade. It's almost like he's ignoring data and just pushing an agenda that he's being told to push.
Just going to self promote and resurrect this thread
Its bad. The agenda is being pushed hard right now and its very clear what the message is: "Damn the facts, destroy the ACC and outright lie about the metrics if you have to."
The SEC and Big Ten have been chosen to be the conferences of power going forward, and the powers that be (ESPN) aren't going to let anyone else stand in their way, and if they have to ask their experts to lie and gaslight to push an agenda, they're more than willing to do it. Hell, Herbstreit and Lunardi have gone on record with those kind of statements in the last 3 months alone.
They just want more money and power.
The sooner that VT is in a glorified IVY league or we merge to two super conferences can't come soon enough. If we are relegated to a shit league with no chance to play at the adults table, VT fans can look no further than themselves (our donors have been stingy for 100 years) and the VT admin who weren't serious about winning in football for 10 years.
That goes all the way back to Torgerson.
Thinking that response gets blocked...
Truth hurts sometimes
Blind resume using Kenpom sos sor etc and acc has way more teams in than 3. NOT blind resume where you see the team and conference names and all of a sudden the acc is weak and mwc is loaded
Side note: one of the VT writers posted an interesting tid bit the other day; we've played top ten most quad 1 games than anyone in the country rn and have two more in the schedule. Think we only played like 7 total last year and have played 10 already this year *subject to change*
Lunardi jumped the shark when he was dumb enough (he always had inside info) the year that he dropped a team that hadn't played in 3 days from a 10 seed to out of the dance 20 mins before the selection show. May have been Clemson in fact. But that was the year he was exposed.
Remember how Lunardi has spent all year saying how the ACC sucks and how the SEC and Mountain West were better?
Yeah, which conference is straight up dominating the tournament right now, and which ones laid a giant shit bomb out there? Yeah the ACC is just doing what it always does and somehow we all know shit for brains like Joe L will be right back at it reminding everyone how much we suck next year because Daddy Warbucks at ESPN wants our conference to go away.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
The mountain west always sucks in this tourney. They are gaming the system like the A 10 did 10 years ago.
Things are getting messy for ESPN. Ya hate to see it
Well he is a blow hard who shouts a lot. Going to be interesting.
Many people are able to listen to someone else rant for hours, and consider it entertainment.
my wife considers that marriage
Some even consider it gospel
McAfee- yelling sports opinions into a camera - "changing sports"... yeah nobody ever before McAfee did that... yeah he was the first. lmao