go back and reread this thread to see if you really understand the discussion. Or maybe, we are talking about different things.

The extension of GOR is absolutely related to the network contract because any agreement that is based on rights is worthless if the periods do not line up. Originally the GOR was approved in April 2013 and slated to run through 2026-2027 and was then extended to match the ACC Network deal and contract ending date of 2035-2036. My initial response to golden domer said without looking at all the individual provisions it is hard to say why so long or whether length is a good or bad thing. Moreover, I said the original GOR, and by association the extension, was good for conference stability The subsequent extension was about aligning contracts but, the original and continuing objective was about conference stability.

You then ask what that says about the ACC compared to other conferences insinuating that because the ACC's is longer it necessarily implies negative things about the conference. Again, I responded, without knowing the provisions and the objectives of the party it is impossible to reasonably conclude, in my opinion. Fact is, nobody is poaching the SEC or the Big 10 and maybe even PAC 12 due to geography but, both the ACC and Big 12 have attractive schools that could make poaching a real reality, just look at what happened to Big East and with Maryland. Swofford secured a commitment through grant of rights that makes poaching a challenge, if not impossible.

Back to the TV Network deal and its length. Without understanding the objectives of the ACC and ESPN it is difficult, if not impossible to understand the reasons for the long term nature of the deal. However, it is not unreasonable to say that the varying length of the ACC deal compared to other conferences reflects differing objectives, in all likelihood, as well as negotiating points of strength and/or weakness. Again, without knowing contract specifics it is impossible to evaluate whether objectives were achieved. Moreover, the real meat of the deal is the rights BOTH parties have for lookins/adjustment/renegotiation. I haven't seen info on this other than it being reported a lookin is coming up but, without knowing what that entails and the rights I cannot say if it is good or bad. As with any good long term contract you would hope their are protections included to shield BOTH parties from unanticipated significant market changes as well as allow for adjustments based on changing market conditions. Both parties, based on their respective negotiating positions, will give up or get concessions in order to lengthen or shorten the contract period. In closing, I do not think we disagree on the connection but, we certainly have differing opinions as to how good or bad and what the length of the deal says about the ACC. In time it will become apparent whether Swofford, much like Mark Emmert, gave away the store for his legacy or whether he negotiated a long term deal aimed at stability when the ACC needed stability and access to the best distribution partner as opposed to rolling the dice in the market on a more regular basis. Given the unstable nature of the football crown jewels(FSU, Miami, VT) and the basketball crown jewels due to aging coaches as well as the virus unforeseen at the time there is at least some support for stability. As I said, how good or bad it actually is will come in to focus with time and more understanding of the contract provisions.