Bias is involved in "facts" that are presented. Bias is involved in headlines and statements. "If Florida State leaves the ACC, it will cause the conference to implode like the PAC-12" Is that a factual statement, or is it a biased interpretation of what might happen? They list some of the items listed in the FSU amendment to the lawsuit. In that, they quote a former article which stated that the former FSU AD "was a staunch supporter of FSU’s membership in the ACC and later the ACC Network", and that he and the former FSU president willingly signed the GOR extension. They then talk about their biased interpretation that FSU is the entirety of the media value of the ACC and that if FSU leaves that the ACC will basically be worthless. The article is simply fanboy drivel. They don't even realize that they post a direct argument against FSU getting out of the GOR in their own article.
I am not a fanboy of the ACC in particular. I think plenty of negative things about the ACC. I have read FSU's original filing, but I haven't read the complete amendment. The actual details in FSU's filing are almost laughable. That is from reading the actual filing, not from reading someone else's interpretation of it. The ACC filings are logical and point to laws. FSU's filing is sloppy and while it references laws, it doesn't do a good job of lining up it's points with those laws. I have stated many times that I am not a lawyer, but my layman reading of the filings do not seem professional at all.
Either you totally misinterpret my skepticism for total distrust, or you like to twist words to try to win internet arguments. Did I say that McMurphy is "untrustworthy", or did I say that I like to have more information than just his quoting another source before I actually believe what his interpretation about the "magnificent seven"? There are few people/sources that I totally distrust out of hand. There are sources that I have more faith in than others. What I do for the most part is try to find facts from multiple sources, and make my own conclusions.
I think for the end game discussion, we are simply speaking past each other. I do understand that FSU wants to be in the Big10 or SEC in order to make more money. What I don't understand is how their current methods are supposed to get them there. I had a post earlier where I went through possibilities if FSU is able to get out of the ACC. Even if they get out with their media rights, they will not be a fully paid member of either conference until the next media contracts. (2030 for Big10 and 2034 for SEC). To me, the end game discussion is about more than just where FSU would like to be. It is about what is possible for FSU. They WILL NOT get a fully paid membership to either of those conferences. Not because of anything to do with FSU or the ACC, but because fully paid memberships are dependent upon the broadcast companies paying a full amount to the conference. That isn't happening. So, what is FSU trying to get NOW with their actions NOW? If FBS splits up into a "professional" and an "academic" division, then things will be blown up, and this action isn't necessary. In six years, full memberships in the Big10 could be available. FSU's actions might make sense in six years, but why now? Your answer to the end game has been that FSU wants to be a member of the Big10 or SEC making $50 million more than they make in the ACC. Well, no matter what happens in the lawsuits, they won't get that result for at least six years. So why file a lawsuit NOW? What is the end game of the current actions? If they win everything they want, where will they be in 2025 or 2026? They won't be a fully paid member of the Big10. They might be able to make $32 million like Oregon, but that isn't worth the trouble they are going through NOW. In 2030, they could possibly be a fully paid member of the Big10. However, as an end game, where do they think they can possibly be in 2026 as a result of the current legal filings?
