The Guys @ Warchant Question Barron's Statement

I will not post the whole article here, because I encourage you to check out warchant. I will post some major ideas though. I will also say that Gene Williams picked Barron's statement apart. This conference expansion thing hasn't gone away after all.

Williams says that the information given by Barron on third tier rights is misleading. He argues that FSU not being rewarded by the ACC for their brand name is a major problem with the current deal. It is not really fair that Wake Forest gets the same cut as FSU for football. The argument about travel is misleading according to Williams. He says that the difference right now is 2.9 million as Barron said, but it will increase with FSU leaving for the Big 12. If FSU and Clemson, VT, or Miami leave for the Big 12 that difference grows. After the re-negotiated deal, there could be a 6 or 7 million gap. Imagine if all four leave like I had originally proposed. The Big 12 deal would be huge.

The final argument Williams makes against the statement is about academic perception. Williams says the academic perception of FSU leaving shouldn't matter. It is interesting the argument he gave as it is the same as booster president Andy Haggard. When a person gets a degree from FSU they don't think gee I am glad I got a degree from a school in the same conference as Duke and UVA. FSU students get a degree from FSU. Why do we care if Texas or Duke are in our conference? Does it really affect our academic perception if we are in Duke's conference?

My favorite point is the one about exit fees. It seems to be the most relevant to the discussion. This idea about exit fees is probably going to be the main issue for FSU leaving or staying. Williams points out that the Big 12 paid 1/2 of WVU's exit fee. Why wouldn't they do the same for FSU and say VT who would bring more of a brand name? This is a complicated issue and may take some more time to play out.

-Noland